Gun Control

Quote: rxwine

What would a case like this settle for if he had shot someone else dead in the store? Hate to say they might of got lucky since he shot his mother, but if he killed someone else's baby sitting in shopping cart I don't imagine the parents would be all that sympathetic to having their kid dead and getting a "sorry" or whatever.

Hard to believe the parents wouldn't be liable.

Parents would most certainly be liable. Nobody else would be.

Quote: AZDuffman

Parents would most certainly be liable. Nobody else would be.

Wouldn't it be whoever has the deepest pockets?

So, for all the talk about how powerful the NRA is supposed to be, pro gun control groups spend over seven times as much!

Let a freak accident like this take place and people talk about gun control.

Not common sense or statistics or risk of death in driving to that Idaho Walmart or risk of death from lightening in Idaho.

Quote: Fleastiff

Let a freak accident like this take place and people talk about gun control.

Not common sense or statistics or risk of death in driving to that Idaho Walmart or risk of death from lightening in Idaho.

Unless the purse pouch was advertised as "childproof" everything worked as designed. Nothing freak about it.

children play
guns fire and do what they do.
Mother's ignore children all the time in grocery stores (otherwise I wouldn't be hearing them call their mom's name over and over when they want something).

but a 2 yr old is not going to chamber a round, then pull the trigger

Quote: rxwine

So, the two year old who shot his mother in Walmart...

Here's an idea..

A small breakable plastic trigger lock clip that will be broken by an adult squeezing a trigger but not by most small children. I say most, because you wouldn't prevent all these cases, but even half

I think we need to look at security (of a pistol, an identity, or a computer network) as a process rather than a product. Unfortunately, this woman apparently did not attend to the security of her armed pistol, and the result was a catastrophe. Just as having a pistol does not guarantee safety from a violent criminal intent upon taking property or life, having a concealment garment or device does not guarantee security of the pistol.

Carrying regularly has changed my behavior in many ways, and none of those changes are undesirable. I am slower to anger, more hesitant to enter potentially dangerous confrontations, more cautious about my surroundings in everyday situations, and more cognizant of the potential for harm in seemingly safe situations. I don't want to find myself in another situation where I would need to draw a pistol; I've been in those several times, though they were all prior to my carrying days.

Like climate change, scientists are conspiring against guns. (I assume that will be the conclusion) Although these are likely different scientists than climate related scientists.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0426/Where-does-science-fall-on-the-gun-control-debate

Quote:

Of the 150 scientists who responded, most were confident that a gun in the home increases the chance that a woman living there will be murdered (72 percent agreed, 11 percent disagreed), that strict gun control laws reduce homicide (71 percent versus 12 percent), that more permissive gun laws have not reduced crime rates (62 percent versus 9 percent), that guns are used more often in crimes that in self-defense (73 percent versus 8 percent), and that a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place to be (64 percent versus 5 percent).

Eighty-four percent of the respondents said that having a firearm at home increased the risk of suicide.

These figures stand sharply at odds with the opinions of the American public. A November 2014 Gallup poll found that 63 percent of Americans say that having a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be, a figure that has nearly doubled since 2000. According to the same survey, about 40 percent of Americans keep a gun in the home.

Quote: rxwine

Like climate change, scientists are conspiring against guns. (I assume that will be the conclusion)

I wouldn't say conspire. But I also find it difficult to find value in this info.

It's like this - let's assume I'm in my dream house. It's just me, in the middle of my thousand acres, that's only accessible by a tracked vehicle. There is no way I'm suffering a home invasion, right? Me having a gun in my home absolutely increases my risk of dying, just because it's there. By the same token, it's more dangerous to be Amish because electric results in no CO and few fires, whereas a wood stove is rife with those very problems.

So I'll give them that. But there's just so very, very much that goes into gun ownership that they could not have possibly weighed it all. Do I, in my all white town of 2,900 people have the same risks as, say AoS in NYC? Of course not. His town is more affluent while mine is dirt poor, so my risk of victimization increases. I know just about everyone in my town where he can't even know his whole block, so his risk increases. Everyone I know owns a gun, so my risk increases. No one but crims can own a gun there, so his risk increases. You telling me the weighed all this stuff?

Then there's individuality. My Glock is sitting right here, Condition 3. Mag full, uncocked, nothing in the chamber. It's safer than this pair of toe nail clippers sitting right next to it. Go to my old man's house and there's 5 (last I knew) guns stashed about the house, all Condition 1. Cocked, locked, and ready to rock, except the safety is on. My kid grabs my gun, I'm gonna worry that he's gonna scratch it or drop it on his toe and hurt himself. He grabs one of Pop's, and he's a button press away from blowing a hole in something. My cousin has a shotty, also Condition 1. You merely drop it and it's going off. Forget even touching it, just bump the wall and knock it down. Boom. Many more owners don't even bother with home protection. Guns are locked in a safe, unloaded, trigger locked, properly stored. You telling me they weighed all this stuff?

Then there's the whole stats game. Show me where gun laws made it safer, and I'll show you where it made it unsafer. Or, show me where gun freedom reduced crime, and I'll show you where it raised it. We'll switch sides, I don't care. It's an easy game. Give me a position on guns and tell me whether you want is supported or conflicted, and I'll give you a stat that fits.

Crime v SD, that one's just pure BS. If someone broke into my home, and I drew, and they fled... you think that'll be counted as an "SD win"? Pull a gun and rob someone, it's a gun crime. Only if you shoot a perp is it an SD win.

But I will agree, this gun sitting here makes my home a more dangerous place. I won't even argue, because like my Amish example, it's technically true. But, it's a danger that I have complete control over. And this controllable danger will be the key in making a possible uncontrollable danger (home invasion) likewise controllable. That's the scenario I prefer.

Well, I will say this. Stats can tell you one thing, but obviously you can do things to modify your risks compared to the average gun owner that will put you on the less risky side of the stats.

Each thing you do that puts you at less risk than the average gun owner means you become an outlier to the average. I mean without getting rid of the gun.