Some facts about guns in the US

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by James R, Dec 17, 2012.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    An excellent argument to pursue AGW mitigation strategies.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Kinda why I went carbon negative over 20 years ago---------------just in case I'm wrong about my views on the agw claims
    I just like trees and eschew travel.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Washing your personal hands is missing the point. It's a political matter, and adults are responsible for their politics.

    It's like being a responsible gun owner or gun eschewer, and absolving oneself thereby of the consequences of one's politics in that matter.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    so than you admit every time someone kills with an easy access gun its on yours and the rest of the anti gun safety crowds hands. good to know you accept responsibilty for deaths your selfishness and ignorance of law cause. to bad it doesn't make you more responsible.
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Ah, the well armed militia..

    Gun-toting citizens are showing up at military recruiting centers around the country, saying they plan to protect recruiters following last week's killing of four Marines and a sailor in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

    The citizens, some of them private militia members, said they're supporting the recruiters, who by military directive are not armed.

    "We're here to serve and protect," Clint Janney said Tuesday, wearing a Taurus 9mm handgun as he stood in a parking lot across from a recruiting center on the west side of Columbus. "What the government won't do, we will do."

    Similar posts have been set up outside recruitment centers in several cities around the country, from Spanaway, Washington, to Hiram, Georgia, and including Madison, Wisconsin; Other sites are in McAllen, Texas; Auburn Hills, Michigan; Phoenix; and several locations in Tennessee, including Murfreesboro.

    And they literally were, patrolling outside of these recruitment centers, uninvited and unwanted by the military personnel they were supposedly there to protect. But they came anyway, some toting their stools, drinks and their many guns.

    "To serve and protect"..

    And then this happened..

    Volunteer civilian "guards" have been kicked off the grounds outside a military recruiting center in Lancaster, Ohio, after one of them accidentally fired his weapon.

    No one was injured.

    "Listen, it was a mistake. No one was injured and I owned up to it immediately with the police," 28-year-old Christopher Reed, who is accused of firing the shot, told the Lancaster Eagle-Gazette. "I'm glad no one was hurt. I am willing to take the punishment."

    His gun was confiscated pending a court appearance next week.

    Armed volunteers have been turning up at military recruiting centers since the shooting deaths of four marines and a sailor last week in Chattanooga, Tennessee. They say they want to protect recruiters, who are not armed.

    “They won’t give these guys any weapons to carry or keep in a safe. If we don’t do it, who is going to do it?" armed volunteer and Marine veteran Kenneth Casteel, who had been keeping watch over the recruiting center where the shot was fired, told the Columbus Dispatch prior to the incident. "It’s a matter of safety.”

    Reed was apparently trying to clear the ammunition in his AR-15 rifle when he accidentally fired a shot into the ground, according to WCBE, an NPR station in central Ohio.

    "I was out here and was talking to a guy who wanted to look at my AR-15," Reed told the Eagle-Gazette. "I was trying to clear the weapon and hand it over to him when it went off. I thought it was empty and must have missed it."

    Something something about "public safety" goes here...

    This is not the first time Mr Reed has "accidentally" discharged a weapon in public.

    Reed has been charged with accidental discharge in city limits. The Dispatch said he was convicted of the same offense in 2013, and paid a $50 fine.

    He told the paper he is a "gun enthusiast."

    “I’m nobody special,” he told the Dispatch. “I’m just a guy doing my job because my own government wouldn’t do it.”

    If the Government's job is to endanger people going about their daily lives, then we can say that Mr Reed is doing a brilliant job.

    After the incident, U.S. Properties Group, which owns the strip mall where the recruiting center is located, asked local police to "escort all armed civilians from our property," according to WBNS-10, the local CBS station.

    Volunteers were angered by the order to keep away.

    "If something happens here and hopefully it don't and if it does I hope they hang the people who own the place," Castelle told Fox 28.

    Except that something did happen.

    One of the gun toting goons, sorry, "protectors", could have killed someone. I think the people who own the property would be remiss if they did not ask them to move on and keep off their property for the sake of public safety.
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  9. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    idiots or brave fools?
    the guy holding the "gun" becomes the target
    anyone wanna guess the average IQ of the guys who showed up carrying weapons?

    flip side
    the weapon was discharged into the ground
    at least he had the good sense to control where the muzzle was pointed
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Yes. Thankfully. And we can be thankful he didn't shoot someone in the foot, and that the gun did not ricochet and hurt someone. There are many things to be thankful for in this scenario. The only thing we shouldn't be thankful for is that someone so irresponsible was allowed to keep his guns after he did something similar the first time.

    I don't want to guess the average IQ of the people who showed up with their weapons on display.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I personally like the guy who brought his child.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Because standing outside with loaded weapons "guarding" these recruitment centers against possible attack is the great place to bring kids.

    If a shooter did take aim at any of the offices they were protecting, I sincerely doubt their ability to duck and roll.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Interesting tee shirt
    "he who dies with the most tattoos wins"

    Personally, I think these guys..............................silly

    "Me........Me........Choose ME.............I wanna be cannon fodder."

    Oddly pleasing to know that they still got the spirit.
  12. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Carrying chambered and not indexed doesn't show good sense.

    I've had 2 ADs in my life, both with completely unfamiliar weapons, both were in a safe direction, and both times I was verbally abused for days by everyone who knew about it. That's in 50 years of owning firearms,

    Sloppy, I admit. But really...
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  13. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    One AD, remington model 41 targetmaster bold action 22, when I was about 10-12 years old.
    To cock you pull a knob at the back of the bolt. To uncock, you hold the knob as you depress the trigger, then slowly ease the knob forward---------
    I slipped and fired down through the livingroom floor----------fortunately, it was carpeted, which hid my OOPS quite nicely.

    Ain't nobody's perfect.(Not even me.)
  14. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Upon graduating from a typical U.S. police academy, a new officer has spent 70 hours on the firing range, but only one day learning how to defuse a tense situation.
  15. Bells Staff Member

    Guns and alcohol.. Mix them all together and shake them all about, 'cos that's what it's all about!

    Commissioners in Daytona Beach, Florida, approved a measure Wednesday that will allow the opening of a 12-lane gun range connected to a booze-filled restaurant. Commissioners were "leery" at first, because alcohol and guns don't mix, but they came around to the idea, according to the Daytona Beach News-Journal.

    The paper reports:

    I've gone back and forth on this," said Commissioner Pam Woods, who later cast a yes vote.

    "I was leery," echoed Commissioner Patrick Henry, who also supported the business.

    Commissioner Ruth Trager wasn't won over by the new business' developers at the meeting who explained the precautions they'll take, and she cast the lone no vote. She drilled the business partners with questions about how they'll know if someone is sober or a felon.
    They were reportedly swayed by the business' strict rules against shooting after drinking. Everyone who eats or drinks at the restaurant will have to submit to an ID scan, and if they've had alcohol, they won't be allowed to shoot at the range that day, WFTV reports. In addition, guns won't be allowed in the restaurant, though commissioners pointed out that the policy won't stop people with concealed carry licenses from entering.

    Wonderful, they have strict rules in place against shooting after drinking.


    I was thinking breath testing where they can read if you have consumed alcohol, maybe.. I mean, that would be the logical thing, yes?

    Business owner Ron Perkinson said they'll track those drinking alcohol by using their driver's licenses. He said those people will not be allowed to shoot if they're drinking.


    Perkinson insists serving drinks is not his focus, and families and gun safety are. He said safety would start by separating guns from the café where alcohol is served.

    "Guns, whether you're planning to have a drink afterwards or not, will not be allowed in the café area at all," he said.

    Perkinson said those wanting to drink will have to swipe their ID, which would then ban them from entering the shooting range.

    "Once your license is scanned for an alcoholic beverage, you'll be void of going on our range for 24 hours," he said.

    Shame about the guy or girl who gets someone else to buy their drinks for them so they can escape notice.

    What could go wrong?

    /End sarcasm..
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    So ... right. Via WaPo↱:

    Since April 20, there have been at least seven instances in which a 1- , 2- or 3-year-old shot themselves or somebody else in the United States:

    • On April 20, a 2-year-old boy in Indiana found the gun his mother left in her purse on the kitchen counter and fatally shot himself.

    • The next day in Kansas City, Mo., a 1-year-old girl evidently shot and killed herself with her father's gun while he was sleeping.

    • On April 22, a 3-year-old in Natchitoches, La., fatally shot himself after getting hold of a gun.

    • On April 26, a 3-year-old boy in Dallas, Ga., fatally shot himself in the chest with a gun he found at home.

    • On April 27, the Milwaukee toddler fatally shot his mother in the car.

    • That same day, a 3-year-old boy in Grout Township, Mich., shot himself in the arm with a gun he found at home. He is expected to survive.

    • On April 29, a 3-year-old girl shot herself in the arm after grabbing a gun in a parked car in Augusta, Ga. She is also expected to survive.

    Last year, a Washington Post analysis found that toddlers were finding guns and shooting people at a rate of about one a week. This year, that pace has accelerated. There have been at least 23 toddler-involved shootings since Jan. 1, compared with 18 over the same period last year.

    Eighteen of the twenty-three have involved the self-inflicted wounds, including nine deaths. The other five involved the toddler shooting someone else, netting two more fatalities.

    Meanwhile, looking back to the beginning of last year:

    Georgia is home to the highest number of toddler shootings, with at least eight incidents since January 2015. Texas and Missouri are tied for second place with seven shootings each, while Florida and Michigan are tied for fourth, with six shootings apiece.

    You might think that toddler shootings are simply a function of population―the more people who live in an area, the more toddlers are likely to shoot someone. But that doesn't appear to be wholly the case. California and New York are two high-population states that have seen only three toddler shootings between them since 2015.

    And Illinois, home to infamously high rates of gun violence in Chicago, has not seen a single toddler shooting since 2015.

    So it goes. There are very few answers, in no small part because Congress has restricted data collection; CDC, for instance, can't even survey people about gun ownership and practices.


    Ingraham, Christopher. "Toddlers have shot at least 23 people this year". The Washington Post. 1 May 2016. 1 May 2016.
  17. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Just to gig the dead frog, do you think it isn't a good thing to let the stupid die?

    Sterilize the toddlers, but give them the vote, by God!

    And driver's licenses, and all that entitlement shit. Merry Christmas!

    Turn out the lights.
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  18. Bells Staff Member

    I have to ask, do you think small children killing themselves, others or harming themselves or others, is something joke worthy?

    But hey, it's all part and parcel of the whole big picture, isn't it?

    Back in 2013, this was also discussed, as it is just about every year..

    Cases like these are among the most gut-wrenching of gun deaths. Children shot accidentally — usually by other children — are collateral casualties of the accessibility of guns in America, their deaths all the more devastating for being eminently preventable.

    They die in the households of police officers and drug dealers, in broken homes and close-knit families, on rural farms and in city apartments. Some adults whose guns were used had tried to store them safely; others were grossly negligent. Still others pulled the trigger themselves, accidentally fracturing their own families while cleaning a pistol or hunting.

    And there are far more of these innocent victims than official records show.

    A New York Times review of hundreds of child firearm deaths found that accidental shootings occurred roughly twice as often as the records indicate, because of idiosyncrasies in how such deaths are classified by the authorities. The killings of Lucas, Cassie and Alex, for instance, were not recorded as accidents. Nor were more than half of the 259 accidental firearm deaths of children under age 15 identified by The Times in eight states where records were available.

    As a result, scores of accidental killings are not reflected in the official statistics that have framed the debate over how to protect children from guns.

    The National Rifle Association cited the lower official numbers this year in a fact sheet opposing “safe storage” laws, saying children were more likely to be killed by falls, poisoning or environmental factors — an incorrect assertion if the actual number of accidental firearm deaths is significantly higher.

    In all, fewer than 20 states have enacted laws to hold adults criminally liable if they fail to store guns safely, enabling children to access them.

    Legislative and other efforts to promote the development of childproof weapons using “smart gun” technology have similarly stalled. Technical issues have been an obstacle, but so have N.R.A. arguments that the problem is relatively insignificant and the technology unneeded.

    Because of maneuvering in Congress by the gun lobby and its allies, firearms have also been exempted from regulation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission since its inception.

    Even with a proper count, intentional shooting deaths of children — including gang shootings and murder-suicides by family members — far exceed accidental gun deaths. But accidents, more than the other firearm-related deaths, come with endless hypotheticals about what could have been done differently.

    The rifle association’s lobbying arm recently posted on its Web site a claim that adult criminals who mishandle firearms — as opposed to law-abiding gun owners — are responsible for most fatal accidents involving children. But The Times’s review found that a vast majority of cases revolved around children’s access to firearms, with the shooting either self-inflicted or done by another child.

    You'll have to excuse me, but I don't find anything at all funny or worthy of glib commentary..

    Meanwhile, laws that could reduce these numbers, laws such as requiring safe storage of firearms and bullets, for example, are stymied by the NRA.

    “We don’t understand the problem of child gun deaths fully, and so we don’t understand how we can prevent it. In this country we take the death of children very seriously – we have laws to prevent children getting stuck in freezers, or drowning in pools, yet we turn a blind eye when it comes to firearms. This is a national tragedy and it has to stop,” she said.

    The researchers found that some 70% of the deaths identified during the 12 months of the survey could have been prevented given simple measures to store and lock guns in the home unloaded. About a third of American children live in homes with guns – a product of the ubiquitous nature of weapons in society – and studies have suggested that 1.7 million kids live in homes with guns that are both loaded and unlocked.

    Paradoxically, eight out of 10 of the deaths occurred in places where children are supposed to be coddled and safe: their homes or in homes of relatives, or in the family car. Basic childhood curiosity appears to have been behind many of the disasters, particularly of boys, with 77% of the victims and 82% of the shooters being male.

    The ages of two to four, and 10 to 13 are particularly perilous in terms of gun deaths.

    Two-thirds of the incidents involved guns that were legally owned by family members, usually a parent. In almost half of those cases, no charges were brought against the gun owner for negligence or other reckless behavior.

    The report highlights other ways in which the NRA has been seminal in preventing the introduction of gun safety laws directed at children. It has lobbied vociferously against the recommendations of several professional bodies including the American Academy of Pediatrics that doctors should be allowed to advise patients about the importance of gun safety measures in the home.

    The NRA has also opposed moves to introduce smart technology that only allow weapons to be fired by their biometrically-identified owners.

    But I forget. In your world and within the gun rights belief system, which even prevents doctors from advocating gun safety measures in the home to prevent their children from killing themselves or others accidently, children have no right to feel safe or even feel free of fear or risk of being shot.. Because the rights to bear arms trumps that.

    Turn out the lights indeed...
  19. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    It difficult for an outsider to understand the right to bear arms.
    I am an outsider and I do try to understand how folk regard it as extremely important.
    I find it difficult to understand why seemingly sensible laws which most certainly would reduce deaths from shootings are opposed.
    I have owned shot guns and competed in skeet and trap shooting. I kept my guns unloaded in a safe and cartridges seperate in another safe. The guns were only loaded when at the shooting station.
    Safety was of prime concern.
    There appears to be safety issues in U. S. A. which if addressed would save lives and not take away ones right to bear arms.
    One would think it would be the gun owners who would be demanding suitable laws rather than opposing them.
    It is so sad to read about so many deaths that could have been prevented for the want of a reasonable responsible approach to the problem.
    Perhaps the big problem is most do not even think there is a problem.

  20. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Firearm ownership is also an identity politic; that much is clear. But beyond that, it depends on who you ask. For instance, the way I express it is that our firearms discourse in the U.S. includes the right to kill people under the right to bear arms. And that right, in the end, is apparently expected to include the right to kill the wrong people.
  21. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Bells, you misunderstand. Still, or purposefully.

    How do so many children have the opportunity? Why do parents leave their weapons unsecured, off-safe, with a round chambered?

    Again, making laws and enforcing them will not prevent stupidity.

    We seem to be breeding for stupidity these days...
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  22. Bells Staff Member

    A large portion of parents who leave their guns unsecured, out of a safe and loaded and/or with a round chambered face no punishment from the law when their child kills themselves, injures themselves or another person.. It is deemed an accident.

    Do I think making laws and enforcing them will prevent stupidity? Yes, I do. Currently, there is very little requirements in place for gun owners to store their firearms safely.

    There is also a general push from gun advocates to prevent scientists and law enforcement from even gathering data on gun violence, even gun violence which involves a child using said gun to either shoot themselves or anyone else. So we cannot even be sure of the exact figures. Doesn't it strike you as strange that gun advocates lobby to prevent even the gathering of such information? What could they possibly have to fear from knowledge?

    Why would they even deny doctors and medical personnel the right to warn parents of the dangers of not storing firearms safely in the home if they have children in the house?

    Doesn't that trouble you at all? Doesn't it make you question why go so far as to prevent encouraging safe gun storage in the home?

    Who does it hurt? Who would stand to lose if there were laws in place requiring safe storage of firearms?

    Whose rights are being infringed if such laws were put in place?

    The parents who own guns? They can still own whatever guns they desire. All that is required is that those guns be stored safely away and if they are not, and a child gets their hands on said guns, then the parents should be held responsible (which in more than half the cases of children getting their hands on the family firearms and shooting others or themselves, the parents get away with their irresponsible behaviour without any charges).. It certainly would not hurt the children.

    Let me ask you this, do you agree with drink driving laws, that can result in you losing your driver's license if you are over the limit?

    For example, say your child is with you in the car, and you are 4 times over the limit, and you crash your car and your child ends up being gravely injured or dies as a result. Should you be arrested and charged?

    Or should they just put it down to a tragic accident and declare you have suffered enough and let you go off, give you your driver's license back and off you go?

    That wouldn't happen, would it? You'd be charged. You'd lose your driver's license. Probably your car too.. Drink driving laws and enforcing them stops stupidity. Sure, some people still do it, but they are arrested and charged when caught.

    But if you leave a loaded firearm within reach of your child and they shoot themselves with it by accident, you can walk away, without facing any criminal charges and you would get your gun back to go on your merry way because they would declare that you had suffered enough and it was a tragic accident.. Does that sound right to you?

    I'll leave you with this:

    • More than two-thirds of these tragedies could be avoided if gun owners stored their guns responsibly and prevented children from accessing them. Of the child shooting deaths in which there was sufficient information available to make the determination, 70 percent (62 of 89 cases) could have been prevented if the firearm had been stored locked and unloaded. By contrast, incidents in which an authorized user mishandled a gun — such as target practice or hunting accidents — constituted less than thirty percent of the incidents.

    You said that you did not believe that making laws would stop stupidity..

    Do you think doing absolutely nothing to stop stupidity that results in loss of life is a good way to stop it? Do you think passing laws and/or lobbying to encourage and enable parents to be stupid when it comes to guns and access to guns for their children, is a good thing?

    Would you do nothing if you noticed that someone had left a loaded gun within reach of their children, because you can't stop stupidity?

    You want to know what is really stupid?

    • 72 of the young victims either pulled the trigger themselves or were shot dead by another kid.
    • In those 72 cases, only 4 adults have been held criminally liable.

    The stupidity stems more from gun rights advocates who demand that no measures be allowed that would restrict children's access to firearms..
  23. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    The NRA doesn't speak for gun owners, I think, but the gun manufacturers. They certainly don't speak for me.

    I agree with most of what you say, most of the time..
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.

Share This Page