Gun Facts

[ImprobableJoe]

Which is something I've always thought ridiculous. We put people behind the wheel of a 1.5 tonne+ machine easily capable of killing(car) and rightly require proof of ability (unless one gets old then we allow them to drive until deaths occur...) in order that they use them correctly. Yet people can buy a killing tool(gun) with NO proof of ability or responsibility.

Yeah, but that would be a logical way of looking at it. The gun nuts aren't logical or rational, which really makes them ironically the last people who should be allowed to own guns at all.

 

[BrainBlow]

Though most "gun nuts" probably know how to use a gun very well.
And not to derail this, but to say that they are "unfit" to have guns because they aren't "logical" is little other than prejudiced discrimination.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Though most "gun nuts" probably know how to use a gun very well.
And not to derail this, but to say that they are "unfit" to have guns because they aren't "logical" is little other than prejudiced discrimination.

Really? Saying that nuts shouldn't have guns just seems obvious.

 

[BrainBlow]

Yes, but you are saying "gun nuts" which is just a slogan for someone with an obsessive interest in guns.
I know plenty "gun nuts", but they aren't like the stereotype redneck gun touting, radical creationists that everyone thinks of.
Having an "obsessive interest" in guns doesn't mean that you are crazy. They aren't automatically a gun-owning gorilla199.

This reminds me of a certain South-Park episode.

 

[SpaceCDT]

What? The US isn't politically stable and there is war within it's borders? The rest of us feel safe and sound in our homes without the need of resorting to guns - why not the US?

Don't make massive claims without supporting them with facts - that's a creotard tactic.

 

[televator]

Also, really strict classes. Lots of classes, and a yearly skills test. I was a marksmanship coach in the Marines, and I'll tell you honestly that I didn't trust half of those trained shooters to actually hit anything in a stressful situation, so why the hell should we have any faith that a civilian would be able to handle themselves under pressure?

What do you propose? Some sort of test or course with a stress factor built in? I'm genuinely curious. I was ranked expert on the range, but I was itching for some kind of course with live fire. We finally got to a course late into my initial training but there was no live fire....We were literally out there going "Pew, pew, pew!" and calling it training....biggest effing letdown. I'm not saying that because I love killin and blowin things away like some wannabe Rambo, but I really wanted to hone out my handling and accuracy in a controlled scenario rather than have to work it out with your friendlies jumping around in front of you in a real situation.

 

[kenandkids]

What do you propose? Some sort of test or course with a stress factor built in? I'm genuinely curious. I was ranked expert on the range, but I was itching for some kind of course with live fire. We finally got to a course late into my initial training but there was no live fire....We were literally out there going "Pew, pew, pew!" and calling it training....biggest effing letdown. I'm not saying that because I love killin and blowin things away like some wannabe Rambo, but I really wanted to hone out my handling and accuracy in a controlled scenario rather than have to work it out with your friendlies jumping around in front of you in a real situation.

The police and sheriffs here have quite good training in stress situations. A combination of timed, surprise targets, moving targets, and loud noises creates an environment that produces stress and without hazard or danger.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

What do you propose? Some sort of test or course with a stress factor built in? I'm genuinely curious. I was ranked expert on the range, but I was itching for some kind of course with live fire. We finally got to a course late into my initial training but there was no live fire....We were literally out there going "Pew, pew, pew!" and calling it training....biggest effing letdown. I'm not saying that because I love killin and blowin things away like some wannabe Rambo, but I really wanted to hone out my handling and accuracy in a controlled scenario rather than have to work it out with your friendlies jumping around in front of you in a real situation.

I'm not entirely sure that people should even own handguns, from a practical standpoint. The last thing the world needs is some idiot who thinks that he should pull out a pistol when he feels threatened in public. He's likely to get himself killed, or accidentally kill an innocent bystander. The number of people I saw who in the sterile stress-free environment of a day at the range who would forget where the safety was, screw up the safe range practices, and then not hit anything but the dirt most of the time... under pressure, I don't want to imagine the way they would screw up. Civilians have even less business trying to play hero on the street.

 

[Laurens]

I dunno if this is derailing the topic too much, but would you guys support arming the population if there was an invasion, or risk of invasion?

This was done in World War II in England with the Home Guard, many people all over the country had weapons in their homes. Do you think this would be a good thing in the context of a war?

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

I dunno if this is derailing the topic too much, but would you guys support arming the population if there was an invasion, or risk of invasion?

This was done in World War II in England with the Home Guard, many people all over the country had weapons in their homes. Do you think this would be a good thing in the context of a war?

Assuming a force capable of directly threatening the major nations of the world without threat of nuclear response, I doubt arming the citizens would do more than help said doomed citizens feel a little safer.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I dunno if this is derailing the topic too much, but would you guys support arming the population if there was an invasion, or risk of invasion?

This was done in World War II in England with the Home Guard, many people all over the country had weapons in their homes. Do you think this would be a good thing in the context of a war?

No. Doubly so in America, that is so chock full of immigrants that we'd likely have people shooting random people who they thought might be the same ethnicity as whoever was invading.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

I dunno if this is derailing the topic too much, but would you guys support arming the population if there was an invasion, or risk of invasion?

This was done in World War II in England with the Home Guard, many people all over the country had weapons in their homes. Do you think this would be a good thing in the context of a war?

No. Doubly so in America, that is so chock full of immigrants that we'd likely have people shooting random people who they thought might be the same ethnicity as whoever was invading.

That too. It would also turn citizens into combatants, therefore an enemy would be justified in leveling cities without worrying about the morality of killing innocents.

 

[televator]

What do you propose? Some sort of test or course with a stress factor built in? I'm genuinely curious. I was ranked expert on the range, but I was itching for some kind of course with live fire. We finally got to a course late into my initial training but there was no live fire....We were literally out there going "Pew, pew, pew!" and calling it training....biggest effing letdown. I'm not saying that because I love killin and blowin things away like some wannabe Rambo, but I really wanted to hone out my handling and accuracy in a controlled scenario rather than have to work it out with your friendlies jumping around in front of you in a real situation.

I'm not entirely sure that people should even own handguns, from a practical standpoint. The last thing the world needs is some idiot who thinks that he should pull out a pistol when he feels threatened in public. He's likely to get himself killed, or accidentally kill an innocent bystander. The number of people I saw who in the sterile stress-free environment of a day at the range who would forget where the safety was, screw up the safe range practices, and then not hit anything but the dirt most of the time... under pressure, I don't want to imagine the way they would screw up. Civilians have even less business trying to play hero on the street.

Well...like it or not it's in the constitution....might as well have as many gun owners trained If you can't get rid of guns. I really don't think people can really foretell either way when a gun can either be good or detrimental in a dire situation, given the rampant amount of guns circulating in the US. If you could get rid of guns, maybe armed robberies would go down....murder probably for sure, but you can't get rid of them. What are you going to do? Repeal the 2nd amendment? I'm not going to hold my breath on that.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

Well...like it or not it's in the constitution....might as well have as many gun owners trained If you can't get rid of guns. I really don't think people can really foretell either way when a gun can either be good or detrimental in a dire situation, given the rampant amount of guns circulating in the US. If you could get rid of guns, maybe armed robberies would go down....murder probably for sure, but you can't get rid of them. What are you going to do? Repeal the 2nd amendment? I'm not going to hold my breath on that.

You don't need to - the constitution doesn't specify what arms a citizen has the right to bare - you can minimize the types of firearms one is allowed to own.

 

[televator]

Well...like it or not it's in the constitution....might as well have as many gun owners trained If you can't get rid of guns. I really don't think people can really foretell either way when a gun can either be good or detrimental in a dire situation, given the rampant amount of guns circulating in the US. If you could get rid of guns, maybe armed robberies would go down....murder probably for sure, but you can't get rid of them. What are you going to do? Repeal the 2nd amendment? I'm not going to hold my breath on that.

You don't need to - the constitution doesn't specify what arms a citizen has the right to bare - you can minimize the types of firearms one is allowed to own.

Yes you could minimize the efficiency and effectiveness of the weapons that citizens are allowed to carry. I think having those sorts of limitations is possible, and certainly addressees most of my concerns, but I don't think it completely addresses Joe's concerns -- which is where my comment was directed.

 

[Netheralian]

What? The US isn't politically stable and there is war within it's borders? The rest of us feel safe and sound in our homes without the need of resorting to guns - why not the US?

Don't make massive claims without supporting them with facts - that's a creotard tactic.

Massive claims? What massive claims? Are you denying the the US is politically stable or that the majority of people in the western world feel perfectly safe without guns? If they didn't where is the popular support for the reintroduction of gun ownership? There seems to be little political movement to repeal current gun laws.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Making something illegal does not remove the demand. If it did, we wouldn't have the freaking drug wars, and prohibition would have been a success.
You know what both alcohol prohibition and prohibition of drugs resulted in?

Yeah! Prohibition failed! Obviously guns and alcohol are sold and consumed in the exact same way!

While we're at it, let's make everything legal. Prohibition failed, right? Who wants to come to my place and make some dirty bombs?

 

[BrainBlow]

Nice slippery slope you have running there.

 

[Giliell]

This is quite literally no different than prohibition. Hell, the other result is the violence and murders that then will rise alongside the growing illegal market!

Evidence, please.
If that were true, you should see that happening in countries with strickter gun laws and especially in countries where the gun laws were changed.

Yes, so lets ban two-story beds too. Do you have any idea how many people die or is badly injured each year by falling out of their beds?
Invalid comparison? Not at all. After all, we're talking about the wellbeing of the child. Can't be selective about what to protect them from there, when clearly, kids do actually die by these things.

No, you tell me. Because a quick search for "deadly accident two-story beds" didn't give me anything relevant on the first page. And I'm not willing to spend more time doing xour research. So either put up or shut up.

Big surprise. I'm 17. But in case you just skimmed through what I read, I wrote that I did in fact forget the lectures, though I always remained wary. I was reminded of them by my mother and then remembered them again.
But what, you think people can't remember anything clearly from their childhoods? That is a surprising claim you come with there.
Though I'd love to see this research that says that kids are too stupid to be able to understand when anything actually is dangerous.
And please, most parents pretty much "teach" their kids about what is bad with a simple "don't do that". (like if that'll help)

You're clueless about child developement and cognitive developement.
Your assumption that I'd suggested kids were "too stupid" shows that clear enough.
Children aren't stupid, but they aren't adults either with the full mental abilities. It's not that we just have to teach them all the facts that we adults know, it's that they are also lacking the tools to process that information and we have to build them, too.
That's the great achievement of the great early pedagogues like Montessori and Pestalozzi.
Here are a few links for you:

http://www.laportehealth.org/pics/index/kids_dart.html
http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/articles/9579/1/Children-cant-judge-traffic-speeds/Page1.html
http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/piaget.html

You should check out the information about the works of Piaget. About the concrete operational stage which means, if you boil it down, that kids at that stage learn by trial and error. You can see that if you watch them do a jigsaw. They will actually try to fit a piece tongue on tongue.

You say yourself that your mum needed to remind you. What if mum isn't there at that crucial moment?
No, I don't think that people can't remember anything clearly from their childhood. But our memories are pretty shitty. Especially those from our childhood. There's one thing that's infantile amnesia, which means that people can't remember anything from before their third year. The other one is that our memories, especially those from our childhood are very prone to "manipulation". We reconstruct them from the stories our family tells us.

Yes, most parents tell their children "don't do that". Because actually, at a certain age, you can save your breath. "It's dangerous" "You can get hurt" "You can die" doesn't mean much to them.
Here's a scienceblog post about an interesting study about children and death. Theists love to claim that it showed that a belief in an afterlife were hard-wired into our brains, but the more "scientific" one is that their knowledge and understanding about what dead means has to be developed.
http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2006/01/when_you_die_do_you_know_youre.php

You teach the kids not to fuck around with the balcony and other high places too.
Can accidents still happen? Yes, no one argues against that.
But you really don't make anything safer by taking only preventive measures and not teaching them a damn thing about the subject. In many cases it'll just be postponing an accident.

Nonsense and a strawman.
I've give you plenty of evidence above that kids are not able to make those decissions responsibly. But of course it's not about putting them in a rubber-cell until they're 18. Of course you have to let them get in contact and teach . But preventing them from falling off the balcony when they're three doesn't meant they'll jump off the balcony when they're 10.

Someone who is going to do things like these shootings are going to get their hands on the guns, illegal or not.
An important difference?
Legal guns let themselves be tracked much easier than some unregistered illegal firearm.
Now in the scenario where you have these restrictions, you then also add how the firearm part of the black market rises and violence alongside with it.

Claim without a shred of evidence behind it.

From the source that started this discussion:

Fact: 31 of 32 models of gun locks tested by the government's Consumer Product Safety Commission could be opened without the key. According to their spokesperson, "We found you could open locks with paper clips, a pair of scissors or tweezers, or you could
whack them on the table and they would open."
242

Which proves that 31 of 32 locks weren't suited for their job. Which doesn't mean that there aren't locks and lockers that are suited. In Germany you have to have a locker similar to a bank safe. That's not an argument against gun locks or the regulation to have them in lockers, it's an argument against bad locks.

I find the idea ridiculous that we couldn't do anything to prevent shootings and accidents short of a perfect Utopia. That gun restriction and regulation would only increase homicide and violence.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Well...like it or not it's in the constitution....might as well have as many gun owners trained If you can't get rid of guns. I really don't think people can really foretell either way when a gun can either be good or detrimental in a dire situation, given the rampant amount of guns circulating in the US. If you could get rid of guns, maybe armed robberies would go down....murder probably for sure, but you can't get rid of them. What are you going to do? Repeal the 2nd amendment? I'm not going to hold my breath on that.

I'm not interested in stripping people of the right to own a weapon. I AM interested in seeing people treat them with more respect and care, which could be handled by legislature going after owners and manufacturers. Make it difficult to own firearms, and easier to lose the freedom to do so. And yeah, more training is part of making it more difficult and safer at the same time. Ammo restriction would help immensely since there are so many guns out there.