Skip to main content

View Diary: Father accidentally shoots 7 year old son (368 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I am a life-long gun-owner and I have come... (11+ / 0-) the conclusion gun-owners should be licensed.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:48:24 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I have thought that for 40 years... (5+ / 0-)

      I did some background investigations for NY pistol permits back in the 70s and taught some classes on firearm laws for applicants, and was absolutely horrified at the lack of knowledge, judgment, and awareness that some of them exhibited.

      Very glad to have you come to the conclusion that you have reached.

      I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

      by Wayward Wind on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 03:19:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It just seems logical (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joy of Fishes, cany, Nailbanger, splashy

      that we would test gun buyers the same way we test would-be drivers. Pass a written exam to demonstrate that they understand gun use and best practices, pass a skills exam to demonstrate they can handle a gun and have the judgment to make good decisions.
      I also think that liability insurance should be an absolute requirement.  For car owners, it's an effective (and expensive) reminder that you are personally responsible for damage or injury resulting from the use of your car.

      •  Logical != feels right (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PavePusher, oldpunk, Joieau

        Operating a motor vehicle is considerably more difficult than safely using a firearm, knives, Draino, or any number of potentially deadly products.  

        As for this liability insurance tangent, I've no problem with it.  You can get personal liability insurance up to $1 million for a cost of only $100 a year.  In fact, it usually comes standard as part of your home owners insurance.  That's more than sufficient to deal with whatever fraction of the 2,000 or so annual unintentional firearms-related injuries are due to negligence and don't involve family members.

        •  No, actually, logical to me= (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          makes sense, follows a logical train of thought.  As in:
          a) Guns are objects whose use can result in injury or death
          b) It is the goal of gun owners and non gun owners alike to reduce the number of injuries and deaths.
          c) Injuries and deaths are more likely when gun owners are not familiar with gun safety and handling. therefore:
          d) An evaluation of gun buyers' familiarity and competency re gun safety and handling would likely result in fewer deaths and injuries.

          You might disagree with one or all of the premises, or you might think the conclusion is irrelevant to the broader argument of regulation, but I don't think it's illogical.

          •  Does not follow. (0+ / 0-)

            Easy enough to see when you reduce it to propositional logic:

            AND(a,b,c) -> d

            •  You're right it's a sloppy argument- (0+ / 0-)

              long time since I studied formal logic, but I think I can still think logically.
              So let's remove a and b- since a is undeniable, let's call it a given.  Same for b, which is is not undeniable but I think it's a basic point of agreement.

              Let's simplify it to say that injuries and deaths are more likely when gun owners are not familiar with gun safety and handling.  And conversely, injuries are deaths are less likely when gun owners are familiar with such.
              So if you accept a and b as given, your goal is to reduce those numbers.  If you accept that competency is important to safety, but reject the idea of evaluating competency, I guess we're back to the question of what- if anything- you would accept as a trade-off for better safety and fewer gun tragedies. So I guess it's more of a question than an argument.

              •  Two points. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PavePusher, Joieau

                1. At a rate of 1.1 per 100,000, unintentional firearm injury is exceedingly rare (comparable to injury resulting from pedal cyclist-MV accidents).  

                2. Firearms safety and handling is trivial; requiring only minutes to master.  In fact, the whole of it can be printed in a 15-cent brochure and a 30 page owner's manual.

                The utility of any licensing scheme and evaluation of competency is an empirical question; if you're going to make the case for such an endeavor, then you should be able to show with facts that it will improve the already marginal risk of unintentional firearm injury over voluntarily mastering such trivial things.

                •  There's also this- (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:


                  which is an essential part of what I would consider very basic knowledge about gun safety. Apparently too many people are not careful about how or whether they store their guns, and too many kids are victimized by that carelessness.  I would not call that level of ignorance trivial, I would not call the number of kids trivial.
                   Handing out brochures and manuals is different from evaluating whether or not gun buyers have read and understand them, and express an intention to observe them. Especially if there are kids who live in or visit their dwelling.

                  •  No, that's just some crap. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    Has nothing to do with keeping and using firearms safely, and is written by people who remain willfully ignorant about the subject entirely.

                    No deal.

                    •  Just some crap. Well that settles it. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      Which of their suggestions for keeping kids safe from gun accidents do you disagree with?

                      •  There are only two explicitly stated, so... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        ...both of them.

                        •  Well if you disagree with this: (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Joy of Fishes, cany, blueness, splashy

                          •    Gun owners should always store firearms (including BB or pellet guns) unloaded and locked up, out of reach of children. Ammunition should be locked in a separate location, also out of reach of children. Quality safety devices such as gun locks lock boxes or gun safes should be used for every gun kept in the home. Keep gun storage keys and lock combinations hidden in a separate location.
                          •    Parents should talk to children about the dangers of guns, teach children never to touch or play with guns, and teach them to tell an adult if they find a gun.
                          •    Parents should check with neighbors, friends or relatives — or adults in any other homes where children may visit — to ensure they follow safe storage practices if firearms are in their homes.

                          then I guess it's pointless to continue this conversation. It's getting way too personal for me- kids I knew are now dead because their parents thought safe storage was "just crap".

                          •  Yep. All of them. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            1. An unloaded and locked away firearm is useless.  You should always keep one or two within reach and ready.  Gun locks are also terrible devices; use a case instead, and keep the keys on your person or nearby at all times.
                            2. Parents should introduce their children to firearms, teach them how to use them and respect them.  
                            3. Parents don't need to be missionaries for the Brady Bunch.  Make friends with parents who share your interest in firearms, and respect each others privacy.  You can do a lot worse than excise the gun grabbers from your lives.

                          •  Also...I don't buy your time machine crap. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                          •  You know, I really had no (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            intention of responding to you again until I saw this.

                            Not sure what you mean by "time machine crap", but if you're actually suggesting I should not still be impacted by dead kids because their deaths happened years ago, you're just being an asshole. And bear in mind that although only one of them was under 14 like the kids in the study, all but one of them was 16 or younger. Access to a gun did not make them kill themselves, it just vastly increased the odds of fatality- which is statistically 90% but in their cases, 100%.

                            If you want the link for the Harvard study of fatality rates for gun by suicide I posted it in the last gun diary I commented in. But I'm guessing you'd just dismiss it so why bother reading it.  I know I won't bother reading any more of your responses, which at this point basically boil down to "it's just crap".

                          •  Your time machine crap... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...that is, your "if only we had done this or that" bullshit.  I'm not buying it.

                            Your poor attempt to combine two separate variables to reach a non-numerical third is just ridiculous; Japan has a significantly higher suicide rate than the US with negligible access to firearms.  Hell, you can't even show that removing access to firearms doesn't increase the risk of fatal suicide attempts.  You're just spouting nonsense.

                            Go ahead, post your link.  Chances are I've seen it before and I'll demolish it like I do every other one.  And maybe by then you'lll learn to stop raging about extremely rare tragedies and junk science simply because you don't like my lifestyle.

                          •  Last one, going out to dinner: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:


                            see #12 for fatality rates. Demolish away, I'm outta here.

                            But trust me that the people saying "if only we'd done this or that" were the kids' parents, not me.  Nothing I could have done about any of it.

                          •  According to the World Health Organization... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            oldpunk, Joieau, rockhound


                            in per capita suicides, the US is in (thank goodness!) the 38th or so place, and the top 10 are predominantly countries of the former Eastern Bloc, including parts of what used to be the Soviet Union. Notably, Japan is also there, at number 7. The US has a lower suicide rate than most of Europe. Most of the countries where suicide is more of a problem than the US have MUCH tougher gun laws.

                            I don't see much of a correlation, sorry, and WHO statistics are based on a much larger collection of samples than the US-only study you refer to (limited to the northeastern region of one country only).


                          •  Was not making the argument (0+ / 0-)

                            that we have more suicides.  Link was about the relatively higher likelihood that suicide will result in fatality when a gun is used.

                          •  Does not say what you said it says. (0+ / 0-)
                            Across the Northeast, case fatality rates ranged from over 90% for firearms to under 5% for drug overdoses, cutting and piercing (the most common methods of attempted suicide).
                            Case fatality rates for suicide attempts involving firearms are over 90 percent.  Says nothing about access to a firearm.
                          •  Yes, exactly: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            case fatality rates for suicide attempts involving firearms are over 90 percent, compared with 5% lethality for other common methods.
                            You seem to conclude that the use of a gun to commit suicide somehow does not imply access to a gun.  Or that kids with no access to guns are just as likely to die from a suicide attempt. Or that it's all irrelevant. Or something.
                            But just to make you happy, let me amend my original statement.  A kid who has access to a gun is more likely to use a gun in a suicide attempt than is a kid who has no access to a gun. And the kid who uses a gun is much more likely to die in the attempt.
                            But really we will never agree about any of this. And Hugh Jackman is on my TV screen right now so it's time to turn off dailykos and concentrate.

                          •  No. (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm saying there's no evidence that access to a gun implies greater risk of fatal suicide attempt.

                •  Sigh. "Firearms safety and handling is ... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cany, blueness, splashy

                  ...trivial; requiring only minutes to master."

                  Nonsense. Reading about about to handle a firearm safely can be done in 15 minutes. Getting a rudimentary, hands-on lesson about doing so can be done in that same amount of time.

                  Mastering it takes a good deal longer. I have taught perhaps three dozen people how to shoot handguns. None of them came close to mastering the basics of safety in 15 minutes or an hour. Each them had to told repeatedly to always to be aware of where they were pointing their weapon, for example.

                  Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                  by Meteor Blades on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 11:06:03 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Nonsense. (0+ / 0-)

                    You're not instructing in some esoteric martial art.  This is where the bullet comes out.  You may have noticed that in your X many years on planet.  Keep it away from people.  Here's the safety.  Here's how to engage.  Here's the magazine.  Here's how to load.  Here's how release.  Here's how charge.  Point, squeeze the trigger.  Within minutes you'll have them putting 2 in groups at 5 yards, which is a typical enough range of engagement they'll likely encounter.  I've yet to meet anyone who didn't have a healthy enough respect for the business end of a gun.

                    Perhaps you're dealing with exceptionally dimwitted students, in which case you have to ask yourself why you're bothering in the first place.

                    •  Nonsense? I hope I am never on a target... (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      splashy, KVoimakas, blueness

                      ...range with someone who learned gun safety from you.

                      Because despite all the expertise and facility with statistics you've displayed in the gun threads here, despite your large gun collection and presumed skill, your statement above indicates a reckless disregard for and lack of understanding about the reality of the average person who is in the early stages of learning how to handle firearms.

                      I'm not talking out of my ass here. Over the years, I have personally witnessed several people with CCLs point the muzzle of their weapon at someone while they were loading it or getting ready to aim it at a target. Not once, not twice, but many times. I have personally taken to task someone (at a range frequented by police officers near downtown Los Angeles) because he was pointing the pistol at the abdomen of the student (presumably his teenaged son) to whom he was giving safety instructions. At the second outdoor lesson I gave a college professor, she accidentally fired the pistol she had put a cumulative 100 or so rounds through because she forgot to keep her finger off the trigger. Fortunately, the gun was pointed at the ground, not at someone, not even her own foot, though the latter was close.

                      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                      by Meteor Blades on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:11:49 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Reckless? (0+ / 0-)

                        How do your "many" eye witness accounts of people handling firearms "unsafely" lead you to a conclusion about the "average" newcomer's competence in handling firearms?  We've already shown that unintentional firearms injury and mortality is extremely rare.  In fact, it is so rare that it is rare in every state in the Union, from constitutional carry states like Arizona to heavily regulated ones like California.  There's no evidence of significant, persistent variation amongst the several states.

                        There's no mystique to a firearm.  Recognizing that gun safety is easy to learn and to master is not reckless disregard, anymore than pointing out that we all break the rules on occasion (or, in your words, "many" of us "several" times).  That includes seasoned handlers.  But only an exceedingly small group of people ever accidentally discharge, and of those an even smaller group cause injury or death.

                      •  And to bring it back to the point. (0+ / 0-)

                        The question is whether or not there should be some licensing scheme that includes some mandatory training before a citizen can take possession of his weapon and carry as he sees fit.  I say this is ridiculous, and all this hard nosed talk about "mastering" the firearm is irrelevant.  You know enough by the time you finish reading the brochure and skimmed through the owners manual to do less damage than most people will do with household chemicals and medicines.  At some point, you need to stop treating people as children.

                •  Licensing of drivers and motor vehicles (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Pete Cortez, theatre goon

                  has absolutely nothing to do with public safety. Why else would the DMV fall under the purview of the Department of Revenue?

                  By the Collision of different Sentiments, Sparks of Truth are struck out, and political Light is obtained. - Benjamin Franklin

                  by oldpunk on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 04:44:53 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  There is no test for merely buying a car. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon, oldpunk

        Most states already have a class and test system for public carry, the equivalent of public driving.

        Since accidental/negligent firearms injury/deaths are exceedingly rare, what you propose will only further enrich insurance companies.  Seriously, why would you want to do that?  Homeowners insurance generally already covers such incidents in the home.  

    •  I'd be in favor of mandatory training.... (4+ / 0-)

      which has nothing to do with licencing, and should be a part of general primary education.

    •  Thank God you came to that conclusion (0+ / 0-)

      I thought you had a different view point on that, so did you change your mind about it lately, or did I recollect  what you wrote about gun ownership during the years wrongly and misunderstood you?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (136)
  • Community (62)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (26)
  • Environment (24)
  • Science (21)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Media (19)
  • Elections (18)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (18)
  • Education (17)
  • Marriage Equality (16)
  • Republicans (16)
  • Economy (15)
  • Ireland (14)
  • Racism (14)
  • Climate Change (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site