Husband kills gun-advocate wife in US

[The Man]

That too. Part of me thinks there should be training classes required before one is allowed to be a parent as well, but I don't know how to do that without raising the government's power to Orwellian levels.

[California Tanker]

In reality, people should be required to pass extensive background checks and undergo substantial amounts of testing and safety instruction in order to own a firearm, as anyone who would leave a gun in a place where, for example, a child could reach it is clearly unfit to own one.

Just how substantial do you suggest? I can think of a couple of instances where police officers had left their sidearms where their offspring could get at them, and I'm sure such things happen in soldier's homes as well. You just can't account for Stupid, and no matter how hard today's modern compassionate society tries to stop him, Darwin will eventually win out.

NTM

[The Man]

That's a retarded stance, and one horribly lacking in compassion. People's kids don't deserve to die because the parents are idiots; just because a couple of police officers are horribly negligent parents doesn't mean that you can't reduce the incidence of such idiocy by drilling gun safety into people's heads. Besides, the police officers probably haven't been properly trained either; as mentioned above or in some other thread, a lot of departments have cut training just so they can hire more officers.

[Joshua Adams]

Guys, I know how we can solve the problem of stupid gun owners. Just let's foster a culture where guns are treated nonchalantly, like normal, everyday objects rather than dangerous weapons. I'm sure everyone will be extra careful to keep them locked up then, just like every other tool in their house!

Now excuse me but I think I left my can opener out on the counter so I'm going to go put it back in the safe.

[California Tanker]

People's kids don't deserve to die because the parents are idiots

And sensible people don't deserve to be penalised because of the stupidity of others. If I or my family die because someone was so concerned about Idiot Smith's child that they prohibited me from having the practical ability to defend myself, that's the even greater tragedy.

NTM

[Watser?]

Where do you even live, Somalia?

Seriously, how many people do you know who have ever had to 'defend themselves'?

[Al Terego]

Someone deterring or preventing a crime happens somewhere around a million times a year, according to the NRA. According to Al, never. Dingfod, if he could wish right now, I bet he would wish he had carried a gun on the trip from the cabin to the outhouse because the pocketknife just wasn't enough.

[Watser?]

I forgot about terrorist bears

[Sidesaddle Gal]

Originally Posted by Watser?

Where do you even live, Somalia?

Seriously, how many people do you know who have ever had to 'defend themselves'?

3, not including myself. (And naturally not including all the vets I know. You are talking about civillian circumstances, correct?)

3 of the times, just having a weapon deterred the crime.

1, deadly force was used. But no human life was lost - a rogue buck attacked a friend when he was out hunting.

I do have a license to carry, but I rarely do. My best friend goes no where without Messrs. Smith and Wesson.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by Sidesaddle Gal

3, not including myself. (And naturally not including all the vets I know. You are talking about civillian circumstances, correct?)

3 of the times, just having a weapon deterred the crime.

I'm assuming you are talking about a mugging/burglary? That's not defending yourself, that's defending your possessions. Not the same thing.

Originally Posted by Sidesaddle Gal

1, deadly force was used. But no human life was lost - a rogue buck attacked a friend when he was out hunting.

Ok, that's defending yourself. On the other hand, the chances of that happening in an urban environment are pretty slim.

Originally Posted by Sidesaddle Gal

I do have a license to carry, but I rarely do. My best friend goes no where without Messrs. Smith and Wesson.

I am so glad I live nowhere near him/her.

[Zehava]

Originally Posted by Watser?

Where do you even live, Somalia?

Seriously, how many people do you know who have ever had to 'defend themselves'?

Yeah,, this is what I don't understand from the pro-gun crowd. Where the hell are they living that their lives are under such an immediate threat as for them to have to be ready with deadly force 24/7?

I'm not completely anti-gun. You want to own guns for sport/hunting/keep one in your house for defense (I think your crazy on that one but I don't have a big problem with it) that all fine, but why the hell is there this great need for open carry or concealed carry in our society today?

Cops, people working private security, bodyguards/etc. Those individuals I can understand the want/need for a firearm, but for average Joe American to want to walk down main street with a sidearm at his side?

I just don't get it.

[Sidesaddle Gal]

Originally Posted by Watser?

I'm assuming you are talking about a mugging/burglary? That's not defending yourself, that's defending your possessions. Not the same thing.

Nope...2 were rape attempts. One was two men on massive drugs breaking into a home for the "fun" of shooting someone.

And even if it is a case of defending my stuff, so what? It's MY stuff, I worked damn hard for it, and I'm not just going to hand it over to some criminal. Besides which, muggers like to bang up their victims. At what point do you stop rolling over for a thug - after two black eyes and one knocked out tooth?

Ok, that's defending yourself. On the other hand, the chances of that happening in an urban environment are pretty slim.

None of the cases I spoke of happened in urban environments - 2 in the country, 2 in the burbs.
I do have a license to carry, but I rarely do. My best friend goes no where without Messrs. Smith and Wesson.

I am so glad I live nowhere near him/her.[/QUOTE]

Shrug. I feel REALLY safe around her. She, like me, was a military brat, cut our teeth on guns, hunt and shoot on a regular basis and are probably YOUR best bet for safe return in an attempt of a crime against you.

Unless, of course, you LKE the idea of being a victim/survivor.

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by Sidesaddle Gal

and are probably YOUR best bet for safe return in an attempt of a crime against you.

Must be a hell of a shot to be able to pick off a mugger in the Netherlands from where she lives.

[BrotherMan]

Originally Posted by Watser?

Ok, that's defending yourself. On the other hand, the chances of that happening in an urban environment are pretty slim.

Muggings are performed with a level of threat. Muggings may have an original intent of only taking a person's things but at the threat of violence upon a person.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by Nullifidian

Must be a hell of a shot to be able to pick off a mugger in the Netherlands from where she lives.

Hehe, yeah.

See, my theory is that guns act as a placebo to make people feel safe, so the actual causes of crimes don't get tackled. But in reality the fact that there are so many legal guns around means a lot of them get stolen and there are much more illegal guns around as well. As a result of this (plus the fact that the causes of crime do not get tackled) there is even more violence. And as a result of that even more people feel unsafe and buy guns. Vicious circle.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Cliche Guevara

Husband kills gun-advocate wife in US - Yahoo!Xtra News

Tragic story, but tell me this...


What the fuck possesses someone to carry a loaded gun to young kid's sports games and think that it's a perfectly fine and normal thing to do?


And then she had a home babysitting service in a house she had several handguns, a shotgun, two rifles and several hundred rounds of ammunition in? With loaded pistol - bullet ready in the chamber - in a backpack hanging from the front door?


W
T
F
???

Self protection of course. Too bad it didn't do her any good at all. It's always the ones you love.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by Al Terego

Someone deterring or preventing a crime happens somewhere around a million times a year, according to the NRA.

The NRA's figure is a lot higher, closer to 2.5million. A Dept of Justice study in the mid 1990s came up with a figure of about 1.5 million.

Yeah,, this is what I don't understand from the pro-gun crowd. Where the hell are they living that their lives are under such an immediate threat as for them to have to be ready with deadly force 24/7?

Is it your contention that there is a specific time period or location wherein one is immune from the possibilities of violence occurring? Schools, churches, shopping malls perhaps...?

I'm assuming you are talking about a mugging/burglary? That's not defending yourself, that's defending your possessions. Not the same thing.

Sadly, there is ample evidence that simple compliance is no guarantor of your safety. In most cases, yes, you'll be fine. But ultimately, you are gambling your well-being on the intentions of the person who is breaking the law.

See, my theory is that guns act as a placebo to make people feel safe, so the actual causes of crimes don't get tackled. But in reality the fact that there are so many legal guns around means a lot of them get stolen and there are much more illegal guns around as well. As a result of this (plus the fact that the causes of crime do not get tackled) there is even more violence. And as a result of that even more people feel unsafe and buy guns. Vicious circle.

I agree that the causes of crimes are not being tackled. But why should I wait around at the mercy of criminal types while I wait as successive politicians in office to fail to do anything about it? At this point, there are far too many illegal firearms out on the streets to break the circle on the supply side. Ireland has recently just re-banned centrefire handguns on the exact argument you state, despite the fact that to date there has been no evidence of a stolen legally-owned handgun in Ireland ever having been used in a crime and the fact that even on a theoretically easy-to-secure island, handguns have proven quite available to criminal types. The circle you talk about has got to be broken at another point in the chain.

NTM

[erimir]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Is it your contention that there is a specific time period or location wherein one is immune from the possibilities of violence occurring? Schools, churches, shopping malls perhaps...?

I would guess it was not.

Is it your contention that carrying your gun never could actually put you or others in more danger?

Because if the mere existence of a possibility (however small) of danger when going to an elementary school, church or shopping mall (no matter where it might be) is enough of a justification for carrying a gun so you can possibly use it to (attempt to) defend yourself (not necessarily successfully), why isn't the mere existence of a possibility (however small) of that gun actually being the cause of the danger, or increasing the danger, enough of a justification to say you shouldn't carry it?

I'm not so sure that the danger of visiting an elementary school unarmed outweighs the danger created by bringing a gun to said elementary school. You don't seem to think there's any question at all.

You asked about the actions of the stupid being used to restrict the rights of others - what about the worries of the insecure or paranoid being used to justify rights that ultimately make people less safe? You can frame it one way or the other, but whichever way you frame it, it doesn't prove anything.

And I find it weird that such people see danger everywhere. It's like they would look out at the most beautiful sunny day and conclude they need to bring an umbrella, and people are silly for questioning that decision.

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

Bureau of Justice stats. Draw your own conclusions.
...

Look at how "non-gun" has overtaken gun in non-intimate family homicides and is pretty close to doing so for intimate family homicides.

Why aren't more people worried about this type of weapon? Join the campaign for "non-gun" control!

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by JoeP

Look at how "non-gun" has overtaken gun in non-intimate family homicides and is pretty close to doing so for intimate family homicides.

Why aren't more people worried about this type of weapon? Join the campaign for "non-gun" control!

I just love it when they do that...make all the graphs look like they are on the same scale.

PAY ATTENTION TO THE VERTICAL AXIS SCALING, FOLKS!

And watch out for your friends and acquaintances.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by erimir

Is it your contention that carrying your gun never could actually put you or others in more danger?

Depends on how it's carried. There is an argument which states that the open carriage of firearms can agitate an offender, but that does not apply in the case of concealed carry.

why isn't the mere existence of a possibility (however small) of that gun actually being the cause of the danger, or increasing the danger, enough of a justification to say you shouldn't carry it?

The gun isn't a cause of danger. It's an inanimate object which does absolutely nothing unless its posesser manipulates it into doing something. Sword, or the hand that wields it?

I'm not so sure that the danger of visiting an elementary school unarmed outweighs the danger created by bringing a gun to said elementary school. You don't seem to think there's any question at all.

There isn't. My visiting a school whilst carrying a firearm is not going to make the school a more dangerous place. My visiting a school whilst carrying a firearm with the intention of causing violence would make the school a more dangerous place. If I were in the latter category, I probably wouldn't be too worried about any legal prohibitions on the carriage of firearms. If I were on the receiving end of someone in the latter category, I might think that someone present in the former category would be a rather handy thing to have. What's the worst that could happen? Someone might get shot?

You asked about the actions of the stupid being used to restrict the rights of others - what about the worries of the insecure or paranoid being used to justify rights that ultimately make people less safe?

I disagree with your logic flow here. In the last 20 years, the majority of States have gone from 'no firearms permitted to be carried' to 'anyone may carry a firearm if they're not legally prohibited from it.' Yet the sudden influx of legally carried firearms on the streets has not resulted in the rash of shootouts in the schools or any other claims of doom and bloodbaths. that keep cropping up every time a State's legislature wants to adopt a carry law.

And I find it weird that such people see danger everywhere. It's like they would look out at the most beautiful sunny day and conclude they need to bring an umbrella, and people are silly for questioning that decision.

You've never lived in Ireland, have you? It is said that the triumph of optimism over expectation is an Irishman who goes out without his umbrella and then feels betrayed when it starts to rain.

Ultimately, you are asking people to play the odds. 99.99% of the time, you will not be in a position wherin you need a firearm. Having one along costs nothing, cut could be very handy if you needed it.

NTM

[Miisa]

Ok, Finland has a lot of guns. A lot, per capita. But they are owned by people who hunt or shoot for sport, or collect weapons. Firearms must be stored in a safe, and licensing is fairly tight with quite a few provisions, and you fuck up once on account of some firearms-related thing and you lose all your licenses right there. "Personal safety" is not a valid reason for getting a licence, as it basically means "I want to get a gun to use against people". Shooting people is not ok, even if you are defending your property. Fur farmers have been charged for firing shotguns in the general direction of animal activists that broke into their farms. Not even hitting anyone, just endagering human life.

Concealed or open carry is a HUGE no-no here, and no-one carries, not even criminals. Why would they? Their potential victims aren't packing, and they face a higher penalty if caught if they had one, so it just isn't worth it. Subsequently, almost all firearms death is suicide or murder-suicides (family members, as a rule, and the possible tempering factor of having to get it out of the safe first is debated), with a sharp spike in recent years due to two copycat school shootings, and MORE people packing would have been unlikely to have made the stats any prettier. In fact, my mind reels with how much worse things would be if that were the case.

I would argue that even concealed carry, perhaps a lot like alcohol, makes you cocky and self-confident over what is sensible, and thus would provoke violence. Not to mention that all parts of society would react and step up, including the criminal element, it always will adapt.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Miisa

I would argue that even concealed carry, perhaps a lot like alcohol, makes you cocky and self-confident over what is sensible, and thus would provoke violence.

Gun control advocates tend to be great ones for projecting onto others their own lack of self-control.

[The Man]

Does anyone else see the irony in yguy accusing others of psychological projection?

[Miisa]

lol

I have been around guns and shooters waaaay too much to think that - frankly feeble - jab has any sting.