Girl shoots herself with grandma's gun at Sams Club store

[Fern]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: NeoV


2nd - why, after all these years, can't some of the billions of dollars that gun-makers earn go towards developing a child-proof gun? Should it be that hard to make a gun that a 4 year old can't physically fire?

Are you kidding me? Go to your local gunstore and check out how many different safeties the average pistol has compared to one made 30 years ago.

Yep. One of my first thoughts was what kind of pistol did granny have?

I can only guess an old small caliber revolver.

Small, because a 4 yr old doesn't have large enough hands.

Old because there was likely no safety.

I also doubt it was a semi-auto as they often have pretty high lbs for triger pull. For quite some time gun manufacturers have shipped guns (both revolvers and semi's) with a high lbs trigger pull for liability reasons, and a 4 yr old isn't usually strong enough.

IMO, granny is too stupid to have a gun. No common sense. You don't leave a kid unattended (wander off, kidnapped etc). You don't leave a kid unattened in a shopping cart (fall out and get seriously injured). You don't leave a purse unattended (stolen). You don't leave a gun in a public place unattended where it can be stolen. Granny fails too many tests of common sense, probably shouldn't even be allowed to operate a motor vehicle (car/truck).

Hope the kid recovers.

Fern

 

[getbush]

Originally posted by: jonks
Out of how many swimmers/bathers in situations where drowning is possible? 300 million people taking baths or going swimming in pools/oceans/lakes, or boating/jetskiing, kayaking, etc? 3500 deaths out of how many hundreds of millions of possibilities for such deaths?

Comparison Fail.

There's plenty of legit arguments for gun ownership, so I never get why people descend into horrible inapplicable comparisons.

The logic of your argument is solid but the direct comparison in this case is more analogous.
Compare 1. the number of accidents or 2. the number of intentional violent acts (extremely rare) involving a CCW versus number of carry days

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Wow. I lived in New York City for 35 years and was never mugged.

What part? You ever live in Brooklyn during the early 90's? I lived on Church Avenue. Consider yourself lucky. A lot of parts in NYC were just a fucking mess in the early 90's. I was just a Special Ed school kid back then (not because there is anything wrong with me but because the elementary school I went to was so overcrowded they put ESL kids into Special Ed classes). My friend's dad used to work for car service. He was told that if he ever gets a flat in East NY he should not get out of the car and change the tire.

 

[Jaskalas]

I think Techs has a point. We should all be confined to padded cells because god forbid we might step outside, do something stupid, and get killed. Easier to confine ourselves rather than remove everything from the planet that might be dangerous.

 

[OFFascist]

Keeping a handgun in a holster on your person is way better than keeping them in purses, cause atleast that way if someone snatches your purse they havent also taken your weapon.

 

[OFFascist]

Originally posted by: digiram
Don't handguns have locks on them??? How easy is it to unlock it?

WTF!!!!

Some have them built in, most dont. However if you are carrying a handgun for defensive purposes you are definitely not going to lock it, because what are you going to do when you need it say "hold on a second while I unlock my gun."

If by lock you meant manual safety, then the answer to that is also some of them have them some dont.

Revolvers usually dont have manual safeties, they usually just have longer and heavier trigger pulls so that it takes more effort to pull the trigger.

I carry a 1911 that has safety that you can flick to the appropriate condition with your thumb. IMO that is the best form of manual safety.

Some guns like Glocks do not have any external safeties though.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Every one of these threads are stupid. How can you actually make a case for national policy change by debating a half-dozen sensationalist news stories? You can't. Therefore, everybody who participates on one side or the other instead of reaming those simpletons who do, has officially lost my respect.

 

[OutHouse]

grandmother is a mornon, she should know better than to leave a loaded gun within the reach of a 4 year old, did she fricken forget she had the gun? and as others have pointed out carrying you gun in a purse is the worst place ever to put it.

yes i have a CCW and the only time i really carry is suring the holiday season when we go shopping, people get nuts around the holidays.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: OFFascist
Keeping a handgun in a holster on your person is way better than keeping them in purses, cause atleast that way if someone snatches your purse they havent also taken your weapon.

the latest fashion.

sundresses with a leather belt for your glock!!!!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm generally as liberal as the day as long, but to think this is an object lesson on the need for tighter gun control is pretty ridiculous.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: thraashman
Hey, people asked for statistics, I gave statistics. In fact I was the only person willing to give ACTUAL statistics for either side. I don't give a damn if you own a gun or not, but if you do be safe about it.

I personally don't like guns, don't own one, and won't own one. I live in work in a major city that has at times had a high crime rate. To this day I've known of only one person who was the victim of a violent crime (well 2 technically, but one survived and escaped). And yes is involved a gun. And that was in the suburbs. I've also known several gun owners, and even a couple of what I'd call gun nuts. I've not known a single person who owned a gun whoever got a chance to use it in a self defense aspect.

I've never met a single driver in my life who thought the idea of making a car safer was a bad idea. But I've never met a single gun owner who didn't go apeshit crazy at the idea of making guns safer. Of all people I've interacted with, gun owners are only beaten out by a few groups when it comes to zealotry. My personal favorite was when I met a girl a couple weeks ago that got downright foaming angry at me because I won't own a gun.

I seriously want to know why in the hell gun owners seem to be so against making guns safer. Why is it that the NRA attacks anyone who says something about lessening violence by controlling guns better, instead of actually trying to lessen violence? I don't get it.

my friend, you are on the losing side hahaha.. you remind me of my college buddies 3 years ago... Don't know what happened... but they ultimately did a 180.

I think a lot of gun owners are smart with respect to keeping their 2nd admend rights. I think they believe that rights can be chipped away. Look at smoking. It all started so harmlessly.

Non sequiturs, logical fallacies, and not so amusing personal anecdotes.

What?

First off non sequiter and logical fallacy are usually interchangeable, you're being kinda redundant. Second, everyone uses anecdotes. Hell, look at the entire damn thread. No one in the thread used statistics. The second I tried to use statistics and cite sources, people attacked but none of them cited their own sources, they just made baseless claims.

And sure, I made even a few claims I didn't cite. And if I'd been trying to go all anti-gun I'd have then begun to cite the dozens of friends and family members of friends who've been the victim of gun violence. But I limited it to direct knowledge of the person and situation. Because I'm not trying to sensationalize. In fact if you really look at my posts, I never once make any claims about taking guns away, lessening gun ownership, restricting gun carrying, or really anything. All I ever said was we need to make guns safer. And most of the responses have proven my statements about gun owners. You don't want safer and you attack anyone who doesn't 100% agree with you.

That was addressed to lesion, not you. And non sequituirs can be considered a logical fallacy but are actually a failure of logic whatsoever. My point was that he used personal anectode whereas you used statistics.

I will no longer defend you. You will have to get a gun.

Edit: about non-sequituirs. A logical fallacy is, por ejemplo, Doug is Funny, Albert is Funny, therefor, Albert = Doug. A non sequituir is more along these lines: A = B, B = C, therefore, Jeebus is returning!

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: thraashman
Hey, people asked for statistics, I gave statistics. In fact I was the only person willing to give ACTUAL statistics for either side. I don't give a damn if you own a gun or not, but if you do be safe about it.

I personally don't like guns, don't own one, and won't own one. I live in work in a major city that has at times had a high crime rate. To this day I've known of only one person who was the victim of a violent crime (well 2 technically, but one survived and escaped). And yes is involved a gun. And that was in the suburbs. I've also known several gun owners, and even a couple of what I'd call gun nuts. I've not known a single person who owned a gun whoever got a chance to use it in a self defense aspect.

I've never met a single driver in my life who thought the idea of making a car safer was a bad idea. But I've never met a single gun owner who didn't go apeshit crazy at the idea of making guns safer. Of all people I've interacted with, gun owners are only beaten out by a few groups when it comes to zealotry. My personal favorite was when I met a girl a couple weeks ago that got downright foaming angry at me because I won't own a gun.

I seriously want to know why in the hell gun owners seem to be so against making guns safer. Why is it that the NRA attacks anyone who says something about lessening violence by controlling guns better, instead of actually trying to lessen violence? I don't get it.

my friend, you are on the losing side hahaha.. you remind me of my college buddies 3 years ago... Don't know what happened... but they ultimately did a 180.

I think a lot of gun owners are smart with respect to keeping their 2nd admend rights. I think they believe that rights can be chipped away. Look at smoking. It all started so harmlessly.

Non sequiturs, logical fallacies, and not so amusing personal anecdotes.

What?

First off non sequiter and logical fallacy are usually interchangeable, you're being kinda redundant. Second, everyone uses anecdotes. Hell, look at the entire damn thread. No one in the thread used statistics. The second I tried to use statistics and cite sources, people attacked but none of them cited their own sources, they just made baseless claims.

And sure, I made even a few claims I didn't cite. And if I'd been trying to go all anti-gun I'd have then begun to cite the dozens of friends and family members of friends who've been the victim of gun violence. But I limited it to direct knowledge of the person and situation. Because I'm not trying to sensationalize. In fact if you really look at my posts, I never once make any claims about taking guns away, lessening gun ownership, restricting gun carrying, or really anything. All I ever said was we need to make guns safer. And most of the responses have proven my statements about gun owners. You don't want safer and you attack anyone who doesn't 100% agree with you.

That was addressed to lesion, not you. And non sequituirs can be considered a logical fallacy but are actually a failure of logic whatsoever. My point was that he used personal anectode whereas you used statistics.

I will no longer defend you. You will have to get a gun.

Edit: about non-sequituirs. A logical fallacy is, por ejemplo, Doug is Funny, Albert is Funny, therefor, Albert = Doug. A non sequituir is more along these lines: A = B, B = C, therefore, Jeebus is returning!

Ok, well my point remains but just not quoting you. I cna only focus clearly so long on as little sleep as I'm on right now.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
These are only my personal thoughts on the matter so take them for what you will.

As far as the OP, I think that it is a perfectly acceptable counter argument to the CCW would have saved the day threads.

I am for what I see as "sensible" gun control.

That means, background checks, waiting periods and no automatic weapons. If you are not a past criminal, can wait a week and want a semi or revolver....you are welcome to it. If you absolutely positively need a gun right this second...you are probably the type of person that shouldn't have a gun, EVER! Now, the sticky point on this comes into play when it is a woman (generally speaking) who is making the case because of a stalker. In this instance, I would say if you meet the background check and have a RO against the alleged stalker, the waiting period could be waived. If you don't bother to get a RO, I'm not sure how serious you take the threat in the first place.

Regarding the stats from both sides, I think that the old saying comes into play: "There are lies, damn lies and statistics."

Both sides are manipulating the data to make their cases look stronger than they actually are. Guns will be used in crimes and there will be accidental shootings. They will also be used to stop a crime occasionally and protect someone from harm.

The 130,000-2.5 million stat is complete horseshit. If you were to total all CCW holders in the U.S. and divide them by any number in that range, you will see that it is probably somewhere between 10% and 60% of CCWs have had to use their weapon IN THAT GIVEN YEAR that the survey was conducted to make it factual. I'm sorry, but Occam's Razor comes into play here: The simplest explanation is the truth....it's a bullshit estimate and when surveyed, people will lie to make their biased opinion on such a hot topic issue more likely to appear true.

Just one comment, the number "130,000-2.5" is not for only CCW but for all defensive gun use. I believe the statistic was that about 8% of the population in a state with CCW has the license. Several states do not have CCW so lets drop that to 5-6% of the total population. (Probably less because some of the largest cities forbid handguns completely, but I am just making up an example.) It is estimated that somewhere around 40% of the population own guns, so in other words 2%-12% of gun owners had to use their guns defensively if your numbers are right, and my estimates are anywhere close.

If you go with the lowball number, do you really find it hard to believe that one out of 50 gun owners had to pull out their gun, even if all they did was show it to their supposed "assailant?"

Edit: Nevermind, Prince has already answered this and with much better data than I have. As a follow up though, someone mentioned the kellermen study, but I cannot seem to find anything on that through google. All I find is info on some kennedy bodyguard, perhaps a different spelling?

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

http://www.fox41.com/Global/story.asp?S=8433978

Just to balance things out

Pretty smart thinking though, old fart fakes a heart attack, falls to ground, pulls out a gun and shoots two armed robbers.

Of course the family of one of the robbers say that they want an investigation because he "wasn't a threat".

More of "my boy ain't never did nuttin to nobody!"

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: palehorse
The OP and the Grandmother in the story certainly have something in common.. they're both idiots.

/thread

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Fern


IMO, granny is too stupid to have a gun. No common sense. You don't leave a kid unattended (wander off, kidnapped etc). Fern

That's all this comes down to. It could have easily happened if they were at granny's house and the child was in reach of toxic house cleaners and drank some. Banning house cleaners ain't the answer the same reason as banning guns ain't either.