Another toddler shot his parents

[shira]

I was going to say, "So... bad shoot?"

I swear if every 'bad shoot' was called out here as often as a 'good shoot' we'd easily see the 'winner' and the logic of a world free from guns in the hands of stupid people, volatile people, jealous people, emotional people, the mentally ill, criminals, kids... becomes clear.

But the gun-lovers don't count all of the "bad shoots" because those are all caused by "stupid" gun-owners. And we all know that 99.9% of gun-owners aren't stupid.

 

[Kadarin]

Anyone who leaves a firearm loaded where a toddler can access it deserves what they get.

And no, this is not and nor should this be a call to ban all firearms except for single shot rifles, or some equally stupid knee-jerk reaction.

 

[irishScott]

There is something like 30,000 gun deaths every year in the USA. Its a god damn war zone out there.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/guns-nra-doctors_b_5939384.html

I said from accidents smart guy. Not including homicides or suicides. Accidents.

And if you think even 30,000 deaths more-or-less randomly distributed among 300,000,000+ citizens per year is "like a war zone" I suggest you take a vacation to Eastern Ukraine, Iraq or Syria. Clearly you need to see something to understand it, as your brain is too small to process the meanings of words.

 

[irishScott]

Do you know anything about the French resistence? Them not having access to guns pre war wouldn't have changed anything. They got their guns from the disbanded french army and their role involved much more than fighting battles.

My point exactly, and those roles often required guns. If the Jews in Germany had been armed, I imagine the Jewish underground there would have been similarly more effective.

 

[irishScott]

But the gun-lovers don't count all of the "bad shoots" because those are all caused by "stupid" gun-owners. And we all know that 99.9% of gun-owners aren't stupid.

Actually we kinda do know that, the numbers for a decent estimate are there.

Given the number of privately owned guns (estimated at over 300 million) vs the numbers of gun deaths per year, homicides and suicides included, (~30,000), and assuming that a unique gun was used in every death, it appears that ~99.99% of guns aren't hurting anyone, and thus their owners aren't hurting anyone.

 

[irishScott]

Then ban all guns except SINGLE SHOT rifles.

Great, so mass shooters will only have to take ~5 seconds per shot and will aim more meticulously. Let's assume that law enforcement is having a good day and responds in 5 minutes. That's 60 aimed shots max, say 30 aimed shots to account for maneuvering and hunting victims.

Clearly no one can commit a mass shooting with 30 aimed shots!

 

[Victorian Gray]

The vast majority of gun owners have them for the specific purpose of dispatching game and/or domesticated animals.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165605/personal-safety-top-reason-americans-own-guns-today.aspx

 

[rommelrommel]

The real ridiculousness is that this is a solved problem - we can make guns that only fire when their legitimate owner is holding it. Solves stolen guns, solves babies shooting themselves/parents/siblings, solves unformed, angsty teens taking their parents' guns for school shootings. Yet gun nuts are so nuts that they threaten anyone even willing to offer those guns on the free market

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/...fter-she-develops-weapon-only-owner-can-fire/

The harassment is disgusting and should be prosecuted, but smart guns are not ready for prime time. Many LEA's have examined them and the cons far outweigh the pros.

Way to evade the central issue.

Gun owners constantly living in fear of their government and imagining they're going to be staging a successful insurrection - yeah, thos are the sane members of society. And anyone without that psychosis is a "sniveling coward."

You're seriously misrepresenting gun owners as a whole. Sure, there are some red dawn idiots but that hardly makes it true of all gun owners.

 

[bradly1101]

I said from accidents smart guy. Not including homicides or suicides. Accidents.

And if you think even 30,000 deaths more-or-less randomly distributed among 300,000,000+ citizens per year is "like a war zone" I suggest you take a vacation to Eastern Ukraine, Iraq or Syria.

Apt comparison. Where guns are, great things happen

 

[davmat787]

11-year-old uses shotgun to scare off suspect during Lapeer County home invasion

An 11-year-old girl in Michigan was able to defend herself from a man who broke into her home late last week. The girl hid in a closet after a man entered her house while she was home alone. Unfortunately for the robber, when he opened the closet door he found the girl aiming a shotgun right at him, Michigan Live reports.

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2015/02/11-year-old_child_uses_shotgun.html

 

[shira]

Actually we kinda do know that, the numbers for a decent estimate are there.

Given the number of privately owned guns (estimated at over 300 million) vs the numbers of gun deaths per year, homicides and suicides included, (~30,000), and assuming that a unique gun was used in every death, it appears that ~99.99% of guns aren't hurting anyone, and thus their owners aren't hurting anyone.

When a person drives a car recklessly, it's still quite unlikely they'll get in an accident, let alone a fatal accident. Which demonstrates that the percentage of reckless drivers cannot be determined by just dividing the number of accidents caused by reckless driving by the number of cars. If I had to guess, I would say that it requires much more than 10,000 reckless acts of driving to cause one accident.

Similarly, I would guess that unsafe storage of guns in the home is very, very unlikely to lead to a serious accident. But there are enough idiot gun owners that there are still a lot of gun accidents every year.

So when you say that "99.99% of guns aren't hurting anyone," all you're saying is that many of those guns are just an accident waiting and waiting and waiting to happen.

 

[berzerker60]

The harassment is disgusting and should be prosecuted, but smart guns are not ready for prime time. Many LEA's have examined them and the cons far outweigh the pros.

I don't have stats to back it up, but I would be shocked if it weren't true that compared to the average gun-owner's pistol or rifle, police officers' service weapons are far less likely to be stolen, far less likely to be accidentally used by children, and far more likely to be used in a person-on-person shooting. The cost-to-benefit of smart guns that might not be 100.0000% perfect is likely much much better for average citizens than for police agencies.

 

[pcgeek11]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165605/personal-safety-top-reason-americans-own-guns-today.aspx

So 60% personal protection and 85% all other uses. Hmmmm.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So 60% personal protection and 85% all other uses. Hmmmm.

Look harder. It's explained.

 

[davmat787]

So 60% personal protection and 85% all other uses. Hmmmm.

[Open Ended]

 

[irishScott]

Apt comparison. Where guns are, great things happen

I'm hoping that's sarcasm, because otherwise you just blamed the Syrian civil war, ISIS and Russian foreign policy on the mere presence of guns.

 

[irishScott]

I don't have stats to back it up, but I would be shocked if it weren't true that compared to the average gun-owner's pistol or rifle, police officers' service weapons are far less likely to be stolen, far less likely to be accidentally used by children, and far more likely to be used in a person-on-person shooting. The cost-to-benefit of smart guns that might not be 100.0000% perfect is likely much much better for average citizens than for police agencies.

Unless of course you have to use that gun for self defense (the reason most people own guns, per the Gallup poll) and the "smart" mechanism fails or its battery is dead. We've had biometric gun safes for years, even the pricey ones fail more times than they work, which is rather counterproductive when seconds matter.

That and current smart-guns are kinda dumb in the sense that they make the process more complicated for the user, requiring you to put on or else have in close proximity an RFID bracelet. So if you want to use one for a bedside gun you have to sleep wearing a metal bracelet. Frankly if I was forced to buy one I'd just tape it to the gun. And there's zero guarantee that kids won't just snatch the bracelet.

When we get smart guns like James Bond's new PPK where you can just pick it up and shoot it and its reliability is on par with a "dumber" gun (thousands of rounds and holsterings/drawings without a failure), then I'll happily buy one. In the meantime the technology just isn't there.

 

[bradly1101]

But the gun-lovers don't count all of the "bad shoots" because those are all caused by "stupid" gun-owners. And we all know that 99.9% of gun-owners aren't stupid.

30,000 dead may be statistically small compared to the vast human and gun populations, but what other problem creates that many deaths where we don't do anything about it? People die from the flu and we bend over backward with vaccines and Tamiflu to try to eradicate it, short of making the vaccine mandatory. We tackled Polio, buildings are safer, cars are safer, roads are safer, everything that needs to be safer is safer or it is eliminated. We go to great lengths to overcome all those public safety/health issues. Except for guns. Guns are more popular and more available and more lethal. It makes it seem like we're dumber than a box of nails on this one.

 

[glenn1]

Way to evade the central issue.

Gun owners constantly living in fear of their government and imagining they're going to be staging a successful insurrection - yeah, thos are the sane members of society. And anyone without that psychosis is a "sniveling coward."

Are you a fucking toddler? Need Mommy to check under your bed for monsters? Does the idea of scary men with guns make you piss yourself at night? Do you hide when the Biatlon event comes on during the Winter Olympics, or you see news footage of soliders with rifles?

Other people have rights. If them exercising those rights scares you, that's your mental issue to deal with and not society's problem that allows you to restrict them so you feel more comfortable.

 

[bradly1101]

I'm hoping that's sarcasm, because otherwise you just blamed the Syrian civil war, ISIS and Russian foreign policy on the mere presence of guns.

No, but they don't help. Don't get me wrong; I don't think anything will change in my lifetime. Profits>Lives.

 

[Fenixgoon]

30,000 dead may be statistically small compared to the vast human and gun populations, but what other problem creates that many deaths where we don't do anything about it? People die from the flu and we bend over backward with vaccines and Tamiflu to try to eradicate it, short of making the vaccine mandatory. We tackled Polio, buildings are safer, cars are safer, roads are safer, everything that needs to be safer is safer or it is eliminated. We go to great lengths to overcome all those public safety/health issues. Except for guns. Guns are more popular and more available and more lethal. It makes it seem like we're dumber than a box of nails on this one.

one, because purchasing a firearm does not inherently pose a widespread public health risk as opposed to say....not vaccinating against measles or polio.

two, because car crash fatalities can be partially addressed as a structural issue, as opposed to a usage issue (which manufacturers have improved via ESC/ESP, also mandated as of 2010). guns aren't blowing up in people's faces (which would be a structural problem). they're being used by people who come into their possession, legally or illegally.

18,000 of those 30,000 deaths are suicides. that suggests a two-pronged approach - keeping firearms away from people who at risk of suicide, and removing the stigma associated with mental health treatment so people can get the help they need. the former is hard, and involves stripping people of a right. stripping people of rights should be done with extreme caution, if that approach is to be taken. the latter is also very difficult, because it requires a cultural shift on our views of mental health treatment.

a guy i know of at my old job took a shotgun to his own mouth. a smart gun would not have stopped that, and i don't know if anyone knew that he was at that point of depression. it's a tragedy regardless of your opinion on guns.

the vast remainder of that 12,000/30,000 are from handguns (about 8,000 IIRC). most of the handguns used in these deaths are illegally acquired. which means that if it's from a straw purchase, a smart gun also does no good. if it's from theft, a smart gun may or may not do any good, depending on whether the theft involves the "smart" part of the system (i.e. wristband).

three, smart guns would require virtually perfect reliability. you can almost bet that the second there's a fail to fire due to failure of the "smart" mechanism, and someone is injured or dies, there will be a giant ass lawsuit and lawyers will be handsomely paid.

four, guns are accessible because they are mechanically simple. mandating smart guns would increase the price, and could in theory push what has been established as an individual right out of reach for many americans. which then could provoke the argument of "do only the 'rich' deserve protection and practice of their rights?".

personally, as far as preventing accidental deaths, i believe education is paramount. educating firearms owners, educating children. and not educating them to fear, but to understand - understand the responsibility that comes with firearms ownership, understand the gravity and consequences of using a firearm, understanding to respect a firearm for its capability for both good and evil.

and just a note that there are fewer accidental firearm deaths for children than there are accidental pool drownings.

as far as fighting gun crime, we've actually been doing very well on that, at least from a numbers standpoint. i think if the war on drugs were changed, you'd find a lot less violence due drug-related activities. also, if the prison system were reformed in such a way that criminals came out rehabilitated instead of better criminals, that would also help. again, not an easy task.

short answer is that there is no easy solution. "assault weapons" bans and the like are certainly not the answer though, i can tell you that much. they are knee-jerk reactions to tragic events that only punish law-abiding citizens.

more meaningful reductions are going to come from changing our attitude on mental health, drugs, and the purpose of the prison system. unfortunately, none of these are easy tasks.

 

[RickBean]

No guns - No shootings, u know?

 

[glenn1]

No guns - No shootings, u know?

Yes, and if we repealed the First Amendment we might also have less hate speech. But Shira and company will be willfully blind to that obvious comparison because they want guns to be a special one-off case because they are cowardly bastards.