Why arming everyone with guns is not a good Idea.

[Scott C.]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl...hot-in-road-rage-attack/ar-BBrzPv7?li=BBnbfcL

A lot more of this. Line waiting rage, shopping rage and etc. people have no problem beating each other for little things. Let them have guns and they will end people for little things.

Very, very sad, but I'm keeping my gun.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And what does the above have to do with the subject of the OP????

Driving to keep yourself safe makes as much sense as owning guns to keep yourself safe... i.e. not much at all.

OTOH, driving or owning guns for some other purpose (e.g. getting to work for a car, or hunting for a gun) could make sense depending on your priorities.

 

[esmith]

Driving to keep yourself safe makes as much sense as owning guns to keep yourself safe... i.e. not much at all.
OTOH, driving or owning guns for some other purpose (e.g. getting to work for a car, or hunting for a gun) could make sense depending on your priorities.

No, I absolutely reject your premises. However, is it possible that you are basing the above on your own capabilities in the use of firearms for protection?

 

[McBell]

And in some states no only is open carry allowed but carrying concealed does not require any permit.

Which state is that?

 

[esmith]

Which state is that?

Idaho as of 1 July 2016
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...aw-allows-concealed-guns-idaho-cities-n546756

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I absolutely reject your premises.

... without giving any reasons.

However, is it possible that you are basing the above on your own capabilities in the use of firearms for protection?

I wouldn't be foolish enough to base my opinion on one person's anecdotal evidence. I'm basing this on the overall stats for the relationship between gun ownership and risk of death.

 

[McBell]

Idaho as of 1 July 2016
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...aw-allows-concealed-guns-idaho-cities-n546756

Thank you

 

[esmith]

... without giving any reasons.
I wouldn't be foolish enough to base my opinion on one person's anecdotal evidence. I'm basing this on the overall stats for the relationship between gun ownership and risk of death.

Reason I absolutely reject your premises is that I disagree with the data that you want to use. You and others want to disregard a persons qualifications and training and rely strictly on total statistics. I seriously doubt you can find any statistics that takes into account a persons qualification and training when attempting to show the relationship between gun ownership and deaths. In other words, statistics can be totally misleading, which I in this case is a valid point. .

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Reason I absolutely reject your premises is that I disagree with the data that you want to use. You and others want to disregard a persons qualifications and training and rely strictly on total statistics. I seriously doubt you can find any statistics that takes into account a persons qualification and training when attempting to show the relationship between gun ownership and deaths. In other words, statistics can be totally misleading, which I in this case is a valid point. .

Some people can function while drunk. It doesn't mean I support allowing people to drive drunk, even though some people can do it.
Nor do I support doing away with speed limits. Some people have training and a background that gives them knowledge and experience with handling cars at high speeds. Good for them. It still doesn't do away with more speed leading to more severe wrecks, and less time to react to a situation.

 

[esmith]

Some people can function while drunk. It doesn't mean I support allowing people to drive drunk, even though some people can do it.
Nor do I support doing away with speed limits. Some people have training and a background that gives them knowledge and experience with handling cars at high speeds. Good for them. It still doesn't do away with more speed leading to more severe wrecks, and less time to react to a situation.

Non Sequitur
However, you did make my point with the statement "Some people have training and a background that gives them knowledge and experience with handling cars at high speeds" directly relates to a statement ...Some people have training and a background that gives them knowledge and experience while handling firearms that argues against the statistics being put forth by the anti-gun crowd.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Non Sequitur
However, you did make my point with the statement "Some people have training and a background that gives them knowledge and experience with handling cars at high speeds" directly relates to a statement ...Some people have training and a background that gives them knowledge and experience while handling firearms that argues against the statistics being put forth by the anti-gun crowd.

It doesn't argue against statistics. If anything, it would say that a shooting range or competitions or hunts are the only suitable places to use a gun, just as drag strips and speedways are the only suitable places for auto racing. Statistically, just having a gun puts you at a higher risk of injury or death from a gun, just as barreling down the highway at 100 MPH puts you at a higher risk of injury or death.
If anything, it's an argument for safe and responsible use of guns, and that is just something that America as a whole is not prioritizing or caring about enough to make it a priority.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And don't forget, I'm pro-gun enough to know the difference between a clip and a magazine, and know why the AR-15 isn't an assault rifle. But I do stand for strong regulation when it comes to guns (and stronger regulations of driving, since I brought driving up). Safety courses should be required, proving you're capable of handling a gun should be required, being educated about your gun(s) should be required, background checks should be required (for all gun transactions), and psychological checks should also be required. We aren't talking about toys, but unfortunately getting a gun isn't much harder to do than getting a toy. And, yes, being stupid should be reason enough to bar you from getting a gun, such as if you think a 500 S&W is a good choice for personal defense. If you think that, and aren't aware of all the implications that has (such as slow rate of fire and the massive power behind each shot that will keep a bullet going long after it's torn through the "bad guy"), you shouldn't be allowed to get one because you are letting Hollywood effect your thinking regarding guns too much.

 

[esmith]

It doesn't argue against statistics. If anything, it would say that a shooting range or competitions or hunts are the only suitable places to use a gun, just as drag strips and speedways are the only suitable places for auto racing. Statistically, just having a gun puts you at a higher risk of injury or death from a gun, just as barreling down the highway at 100 MPH puts you at a higher risk of injury or death.
If anything, it's an argument for safe and responsible use of guns, and that is just something that America as a whole is not prioritizing or caring about enough to make it a priority.

As you would expect I disagree with you. If I do have the training and experience, which I do, then what difference does it make if I carry anytime anywhere (providing it is legal to do so) vice only have a firearm with me at shooting ranges, or hunting, or just out in the boonies target shooting. How is my safety impinged by a firearm if I'm carrying a firearm or not carrying a firearm. How is my safety impinged if I have a firearm in my place of residence. The statistics, as I explained in post #248, are based on "all" incidents and persons and does not differentiate between those that have little or no training in the proper use and handling of firearms and those that do. The data used in those "statistics" are flawed.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As you would expect I disagree with you. If I do have the training and experience, which I do, then what difference does it make if I carry anytime anywhere (providing it is legal to do so) vice only have a firearm with me at shooting ranges, or hunting, or just out in the boonies target shooting. How is my safety impinged by a firearm if I'm carrying a firearm or not carrying a firearm. How is my safety impinged if I have a firearm in my place of residence. The statistics, as I explained in post #248, are based on "all" incidents and persons and does not differentiate between those that have little or no training in the proper use and handling of firearms and those that do. The data used in those "statistics" are flawed.

We probably don't disagree as much as you are thinking. As I clearly indicated in my last post on this thread, I don't have a problem with guns, but I do have a problem with every Charley, Dick, Jane, and Joe carrying around a gun without any training or education. It's very cliche, but nevertheless it is true that with great power comes great responsibility, and guns are indeed a great power that mandates great responsibility. My issue isn't with guns, it's with "hobbyist" who aren't required to do a background check. I hate the fact that we don't even require people to learn about guns before we'll let them have one. I loathe the fact that gun owners aren't aware that ejecting the magazine doesn't clear the chamber (I've even lost a friend to this). It pisses me off that you can get a gun without knowing what that gun is actually capable of. It pisses me off that we don't beat it into people's heads that children require extra steps in regards to gun safety. With the energy of a million suns I absolutely hate the fact that juvenile records remained sealed, even when it comes to purchasing a gun. I hate the fact we are so permissive and relaxed with gun policy that we consider it entertainment to watch drunken jack asses on Youtube have their gun misadventures. I strongly believe that if you give a pistol to fire to someone to fire, and the pistol spins in their palm from the recoil, you should be held for criminal negligence. It's not a laughing matter, but the well being and lives of people at stake when that **** happens. Guns are not a laughing matter, but we treat it as such.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's just one video of many that are labelled as a "comical fail," but there is nothing funny about it (everything about his posture screams he has no idea what he is doing, and the people around him had no regards for safety). People give these guns to people and let them shoot them, despite giving consideration to if the shooter can even handle the power of the gun. The video I was looking for was of a woman who shot a gun that spun in her palm and it ended up bashing her in the face. That isn't funny, but reckless stupidity that should be considered criminal. I have even read of incidents involving people who have died over such idiocy. That is what our gun culture and lack of regulations lead to.

 

[bobhikes]

That's just one video of many that are labelled as a "comical fail," but there is nothing funny about it (everything about his posture screams he has no idea what he is doing, and the people around him had no regards for safety). People give these guns to people and let them shoot them, despite giving consideration to if the shooter can even handle the power of the gun. The video I was looking for was of a woman who shot a gun that spun in her palm and it ended up bashing her in the face. That isn't funny, but reckless stupidity that should be considered criminal. I have even read of incidents involving people who have died over such idiocy. That is what our gun culture and lack of regulations lead to.

Reminds me of my Uncle a Fireman, at age11 and 12 I would go hunting and shooting with him and his son who was 9 and 10. In there backyard practicing one day he brought out a double barrel shotgun. His son asked to shoot the 2 barrels at once. The recoil bounced him off the house. Another time at a gun range we were practicing with 22 caliber pistols. My uncle had a Colt 45. His son always wanted to shoot it. Pride or just giving in my uncle allowed him to shoot it. He couldn't handle the recoil and went spent the afternoon in the hospital and 2 weeks in a brace sprained wrist.

My uncle was very safe and thoughtful with guns and bows but at times stupidity or pride creeps in and fortunately no one died.

 

[Demonslayer]

My issue isn't with guns, it's with "hobbyist" who aren't required to do a background check. I hate the fact that we don't even require people to learn about guns before we'll let them have one.

This. It's amazing to me that we don't have a simple training program that requires a base level of proficiency like we do with automobiles.

I got my license to carry in Boston, which is notoriously one of the most "difficult" cites to get licensed in. Know what great lengths I had to go through? I had to take a one day safety course where a state cop took us through the ABCs of loading and unloading automatic and revolvers, how to tell if it's loaded or not, the proper way to hold, aim and shoot a gun. Then the next day I had to go to a state police firing range and demonstrate that I could safely load a gun, shoot a target with reasonable accuracy, and safely secure the gun afterwards.

Is that such a burden?

 

[esmith]

This. It's amazing to me that we don't have a simple training program that requires a base level of proficiency like we do with automobiles.

I got my license to carry in Boston, which is notoriously one of the most "difficult" cites to get licensed in. Know what great lengths I had to go through? I had to take a one day safety course where a state cop took us through the ABCs of loading and unloading automatic and revolvers, how to tell if it's loaded or not, the proper way to hold, aim and shoot a gun. Then the next day I had to go to a state police firing range and demonstrate that I could safely load a gun, shoot a target with reasonable accuracy, and safely secure the gun afterwards.

Is that such a burden?

Well I could use the same argument that some liberals use against requiring ID to vote.


But that wouldn't be fair would it; using their own argument against them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As you would expect I disagree with you. If I do have the training and experience, which I do, then what difference does it make if I carry anytime anywhere (providing it is legal to do so) vice only have a firearm with me at shooting ranges, or hunting, or just out in the boonies target shooting. How is my safety impinged by a firearm if I'm carrying a firearm or not carrying a firearm. How is my safety impinged if I have a firearm in my place of residence. The statistics, as I explained in post #248, are based on "all" incidents and persons and does not differentiate between those that have little or no training in the proper use and handling of firearms and those that do. The data used in those "statistics" are flawed.

Here's the thing about training: it can often increase risk.

There have been a number of studies lately on advanced driver training courses: turns out that people who have taken them are actually at greater risk of collisions, because the confidence created by the training will stay high even as the skills degrade from lack of practice. This means that unless a driver commits themselves to consistent, frequent training and practice (and very few people do), the people who have taken this advanced training tend to overestimate their ability to handle emergency situations.

I have no reason to think that firearms training is any different from driver training in this regard. Do you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As you would expect I disagree with you. If I do have the training and experience, which I do,

What training and experience do you actually have?