Some facts about guns in the US

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Range wars, here we come again......we're making real progress in education of civilized behavior.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here are my thoughts automatic weapons of any kind are completely unnecessary, whether it be for personal protection or hunting. This also goes for removable magazine's and magazines over say 5 shots, and 5 shaots is meerly for convenience.

In regard to assault rifles and automatic weaponry, I see the attraction of shooting a powerful weapon, but there is no need for them to be kept on private property, how about allowing these weapons, but under the clause that they must be kept and used exlusivley at licenced firing ranges, this would both ensure accidental injury to someone say "in the woods" and mean that when these weapons arnt being used, they are locked down in a safe location, where someone of a murderous disposition cannot access them.

This would also abide by the militia part of the constitution no as they would be well prepared and, seeing as any reputable shooting range would not allow unsafe or dangerous behaviour, the owners would be trained how to use the weapons safely and efficiently.

And to own any gun, I see no reason why strict checks shouldnt be carried out to assure, mental stability, safe storage of weapons in homes, previous convictions etc etc aswell as gun registry to owner so each specific gun has to be put on a owners licence, such as we have in the UK aswell as Aus Canada etc, it just makes sence.

Guns in the home should always be in a safe or other such locked container. 1 to stop children accidentaly getting hold of them. 2 so they are harder to steal if someone does break in. But they are still accessable.

I personally along with my fatjer own 4 shotguns (1 doesnt work) mainly for pest control and clay pidgeon shooting, aswell as some game. We are the only ones who know where the keys are to the safe.

Why these rules dont already exist in the US is beyond me, its just common sense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

While they are not "necessary" neither is alcohol, tobacco, sugar, skydiving, the Olympics, marriage, movies, pedicures, pets, malls - but in our society you need a very good reason to ban something; you don't need a very good reason to allow it.

Agreed there.

While that sounds like a good idea, it only works with legal weapons - and thus would not make much of a dent in criminal use of them.

Most gun owners in the US do follow the basic rules you listed above. We read about the exceptions every day.

 

Good point about neccesity, its a hard one to argue with but my point about making organised areas for these weapons to be used, instead of outlawing them completely still allows for there use, but in a safe manor that benefits all.

As to americans not following fairly basic safety steps like locking up weapons, or keeping them away from children, that is explictily why those people should not be allowed them. If they cant even manage to look after them responsibly when they aren't using them, there is little chance they are going to be used safely or responsibly when they do use them.

Even the mexicans are introducing gun registry among the vigilantes that are killing off local drug lords, in a task to eventually link guns to people, and to one day disarm the vigilantes, if mexico can manage that, with an even greater need for personal protection. Surely the US can manage aswell ?

The personal protection point is also a downward spiral, people have guns to protect themselves from others with guns.

Not a problem in the Uk, Canada, Aus, because of stricter ownership laws, regulation, classification etc. If you only allow personal weapons to those who are responsible and of sound mind, you reduce the need for the less well "qualified" to own them aswell, as their risk from others is greatly reduced.

And if people dont need guns for personal protection, robbers, muggers etc are less likely to use guns as they wont be under as much threat, if they get caught or something goes wrong. If you understand my train of thought

 

I understand but disagree. Criminals enjoy the power that guns give them; that's why they use them so often. It makes it a lot easier to commit crimes against unarmed victims.

 

Self-Defense

Self-Defense

The lede, via Andres Jauregui of Huffington Post:

A 3-year-old Milwaukee boy remained in critical condition Monday after shooting himself with a gun he found in the glove box of his mother's car.​

The investigation continues, but the early suggestion is that no charges will be filed.

Brittany Petersik, the boy's aunt said, told WISN that she and the boy's mother were moving a television inside their house when the shot rang out. She thinks Kevin went back into the car and started playing with the gun.

"He thought it was a toy, like we say. Accidents happen, and this was one of the times that it was a major accident," grandmother Jane Triplett told the station ....

.... Triplett said that her daughter began carrying the weapon after she got carjacked three years ago.​

On the upside, it would seem Kevin Donald's mother hasn't been carjacked since.
____________________

Notes:

Jauregui, Andres. "Wisconsin Boy, 3, Shoots Self In Head With Mom's Gun". The Huffington Post. May 6, 2014. HuffingtonPost.com. May 6, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/06/wisconsin-boy-shoots-self_n_5272468.html

 

Robbers and muggers use guns to compel people to hand over valuables, to prevent detainment by citizens who catch them, and to protect themselves from the police - as well as other criminals. Like any predator they need overwhelming force - not equivalent force.

In places with a tradition of unarmed police and cooperative, nonviolent citizens, robbers and muggers may rely on superior size or intimidation alone. No such tradition exists in the US. That's why even though most people don't carry guns in the US, and guns are not needed for personal protection by most people in the US (just as you stipulate), robbers and muggers use them anyway.

The idea that the government is in the position of "allowing" people to own firearms is a direct threat to a very large fraction of the American public. We will never get reasonable gun regulation in this country until that kind of reasoning is banished from the discussion - seriously: I don't own a firearm and never have, I regard reasonable gun regulation as an immediate need and long overdue, but I wouldn't vote for gun regulation based on that reasoning, and I would have to think hard about any politician who didn't have a better notion of the role of government than that.

In a world in which guns worked perfectly as they are supposed to for self defense, that ratio would be a hundred to one or more instead of twelve to one. The better they work, the fewer the people who get shot on purpose - which leaves only the accidental stuff, and the mentally deranged, both of which disproportionately target family.

Not quite. Town residents of course owned guns and could transport their weaponry from one place to another in town, and the town marshall or deputy carried his weapon openly and needed it. The prohibition was enforced against visitors, essentially all of whom owned and openly carried firearms, and convenient safekeeping of their gun by the hotel or sheriff's office was part of the deal.

The idea that someone could be prohibited from possessing a firearm at all, or forced to obtain some kind of government permit to be allowed to own a gun, would have been a joke. And yes, the murder rate was not that bad considering - as noted before, gun ownership rates in themselves do not correlate that well with gun violence.

 

¿Fort Smith's Finest?

To Protect and Serve

One would think a police officer would be one we could count among "responsible gun owners". But, you know, that's just too effin' much to ask:

A Fort Smith police officer was arrested and placed on administrative leave Tuesday after Sequoyah County deputies said he fired a gun inside his home and held a gun to a five-year-old child’s head.

Officer Naaman Adcock was placed on administrative leave with pay while authorities conduct an internal investigation. Sequoyah County authorities said they took nine guns from Adcock’s possession after he fired off several rounds into a wall inside his home after he got into a drunken dispute with his wife.

Adcock was arrested on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon, possession of a firearm while intoxicated, reckless conduct with a firearm, felonious pointing a firearm and child endangerment, according to the Sequoyah County Sheriff’s Office.

Adcock’s wife Tabatha was also arrested. She faces charges of failure to protect a child, child endangerment, possession of a firearm while intoxicated and reckless conduct with a firearm.

(Baldwin and Lanning)​

Let's review a couple of precious moments from this family album:

• Both children stated Naaman Adcock put a gun to the head of Tabatha Adcock’s son and threatened to shoot him, according to the report.

• Deputies entered the home and noticed several bullet holes in the wall. After further questioning of Tabatha Adcock, they found her story changing often, and when the deputies said Naaman Adcock held a gun to the head of Tabatha Adcock’s 5-year-old son, she said, “Yeah, but it wasn’t loaded!” according to the report.​

While there was some question about Adcock being put on paid administrative leave, subsequent reports note that the Fort Smith Police officer resigned today.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

To Protect and Serve: Threatening children for no reason ... you know, responsible self-defense.​

____________________

Notes:

Baldwin, Meredith and Curt Lanning. "Report: Officer Arrested After Holding Gun To 5 Year Old's Head". KFSM. May 27, 2014. 5NewsOnline.com. May 28, 2014. http://5newsonline.com/2014/05/27/authorities-investigate-shots-fired-in-sequoyah-county/

Lanning, Curt. "Fort Smith Police Officer That Had Guns Confiscated Resigns". KFSM. May 28, 2014. 5NewsOnline.com. May 28, 2014. http://5newsonline.com/2014/05/28/fort-smith-police-officer-that-had-guns-confiscated-resigns/

 

A Sacrifice in Payson

A Sacrifice in Payson

Frances Burns brings the terrible news from Payson, Arizona, for UPI:

A visit with a neighbor ended in tragedy when two young brothers found a handgun and the 3-year-old shot the younger one, police in Payson, Ariz., said.

The 18-month-old was pronounced dead at Payson Regional Medical Center shortly after the shooting Tuesday afternoon. Police officers responding to calls about a boy who had been shot in the head found the mother in the parking lot of her apartment complex with her son in her arms.

Police Chief Don Engler said the mother had taken her sons to the apartment of a 78-year-old man described as a "family friend." The semi-automatic gun belonged to the neighbor and was not kept in a safe.

Engler said the boys apparently discovered the gun without either their mother or the owner realizing it.

"The children had slipped into another room unobserved by the mother and the 78-year-old occupant of the apartment," Engler said.

The chief said no decision has been made on criminal charges against either adult.​

Sigh.
____________________

Notes:

Burns, Frances. "Arizona 3-year-old shoots and kills younger brother". United Press International. May 28, 2014. UPI.com. May 28, 2014. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014...oots-and-kills-younger-brother/1851401307377/

 

Uh, hello?

Keep threatening people with an arbitrary and authoritarian government in the service of that kind of thinking, and their grip on their guns will tighten.

No, they aren't.

 

The washington post seems to have found another "reporter" who makes it up as he/she goes along.

 

well admitedly 30% is not a small minority. it also no where near a majority and the number is trending down. I'm sorry the fact that the percentage of gun owners is going down while guns per capita is rising is an alarming trend. also trying to claim a greater likehood of being killed by your own guns means their working is a good thing is patently false. it doesn't mean crimes are being detered it means people are being resposnible with their guns.

 

No, I'm not. I'm informed by having grown up in small town and rural communities in which almost everyone owned a firearm. Essentially all of my neighbors for most of my non-citydwelling life have been gunowners. (And those high gun prevalence communities were quite a bit less violent, especially gun violent, than the low gun prevalence inner city slums I've also lived in).

You appear to be confused about the difference between individuals and households - a great many households with four or five "residents" have only one or two firearms, but that's still four or five people "with a gun".

You keep bringing that up as if it meant something. Self defense with a gun almost never involves actually shooting anybody. Of course accidents and suicides are going to outnumber self defense shootings - barring outright civil warfare, that's as it should be. The ratio is actually a bit low, arguing that guns are not working as well as their proponents claim - too many bad guys are actually getting shot.

Dogs like that are dangerous to the neighbors and livestock etc

You live too near money - move to a poor neighborhood, especially in a fair sized city, and you will be surrounded by gun-free people and households, nice and safe.

 

Your poster boy for gun control was found not guilty by a jury of his peers in a trial that even anti-gun leftist Alan Dershowitz seemed to think was politically-motivated bullshit.

 

guns don't kill people
it's those pesky little bullets which leave all those holes out of which the blood flows.
.............
just another tool
in the hands of a fool
all tools are dangerous