Skip to main content

View Diary: Welcome to Hooters! Is that a gun in your pants, or ... GunFAIL LX (169 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Neglience (5+ / 0-)

    Until human carelessness can be totally prevented, guns are a menace to society.  The person shot by accident is just as dead as the one shot intentionally.  The more guns there are, the greater the chance of accidents happening.  They cannot be prevented- that's why they are called accidents and no amount of education can prevent or make up for the one thoughtless moment that results in a death by gun shot.  A child finding a gun placed on a counter would have to live with the fact that he or she shot and maybe killed a sibling, parent or passerby for the rest of his or her life.  Is this kind of guilt really something society wants to impose on children because over 200 years ago, the founding fathers thought local militia's were necessary as the new United States did not have a standing army?

    •  One could make that same case for everything (4+ / 0-)

      from propane gas cylinders, chemistry sets to kitchen appliances and electricity in general.

      The more guns there are doesn't really impact the chance of accidents, the number of firearms owners is what you're speaking of.

      But, you're right on one thing. True accidents are rare, the vast and overwhelming majority of these cases are pure, criminal (if not by legislated law, by natural law) negligence.

      As one example, I've handled firearms for well over 30 years. Much of that handling was in the military. The remainder was when hunting, firing in competition or cleaning a firearm.
      When not in active use, my firearms are in a safe, after manually, visually and for some, even mechanically probing the chamber to ensure that the firearm is actually unloaded. Bolt action firearms have their bolt removed.
      Safety is the first, second, third and final rule. Each and every firearm is always treated as loaded until the chamber and ammunition path (magazine, be it tube, integral or box) is ensured clear.
      Firearms are never directed at anything other than a target with a proper backstop at a ranger or at a game animal in season and even then I make sure of what is behind my target, lest an innocent person be injured should I miss or the round exit the animal.
      I've never had an unintentional discharge of a firearm. I've never had one of my men in the military have an unintentional discharge of a firearm.
      I'm also called a "safety nazi".

      So, want to know what the owner of a dozen firearms thinks?
      Cause harm to yourself, property or another due to the discharge of a firearm that isn't due to a malfunction (which is extraordinary rare), you should be charged with felony endangerment. Conviction would remove the ability to possess a firearm.
      Because, in that case, I really can't trust you with something that can cause harm at an unreasonable distance (some rounds can easily kill at two miles or more, most can kill at up to 1 1/2 miles).
      If it is claimed as a defense that a malfunction occurred, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Don't expect sympathy from me if I'm in the jury box.

      •  Kids aren't killing their siblings with propane (4+ / 0-)

        cylinders week after week and year after year.  And besides, the fact that other stuff can be dangerous is no argument to reject sane gun laws.

        •  Rejecting sane gun laws... (0+ / 0-)

 not necessarily the issue. The issue becomes whether to make private gun ownership illegal, and these issues are often confused: deliberately integrated by anti-gun fanatics.
          Just as there are gun fanatics, as represented by the NRA, there are anti-gun fanatics who will accept nothing less than total banning all private gun ownership. BTW, many, if not most, NRA members agree with sane gun laws. After all, the NRA does not represent its members, but rather, it's a gun lobby for the gun manufacturers.

          It's important to separate these anti-gun fanatics from the rightful discussion of sane gun control. There is a reasonable argument for individuals to own guns. No matter what evidence is presented for this point of view, anti-gun fanatics will refuse to accept and refute the argument.

          For all anti-gun fanatics reading this post, please consider the positions presented by Gabby Giffords' Americans For Responsible Solutions, and the Brady Campaign. Also understand that your position will work against enacting responsible gun laws by strengthening the resolve of all gun owners.

          •  Anti-gun fanatics? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber, Gary Owen

            jrudisill says:
            "deliberately integrated by anti-gun fanatics."
            Who are they and where did you hear or see about them?
            What anti-gun fanatics do?

          •  OK, but "the resolve of all gun owners" hasn't (0+ / 0-)

            ... been evident so far in favor of reasonable gun legislation. And that's in the face of proposals that clearly do not "make private gun ownership illegal".

            I agree there are several sides to gun regulation. But we're witnessing torrents of gun advocacy money, lobbying and litigation backing absolutist positions and defeating attempts to get rational regulatory legislation. Which lobbying, I respectfully observe, often resorts to - well that won't do any good, or it is imperfect, or you-have-to-cure-this-first.

            Yes, I do believe responsible gun owners back safety, training and education, restrictions on who can own a gun, probably much more prevalent background checks. But I can't accept that people like you will be influenced by the absolutism of either polar extreme on 2A matters.

            2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

            by TRPChicago on Fri Mar 14, 2014 at 06:26:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site