This is some “we have always been at war with eastasia” level cognitive dissonance.
I would bet that there hasn’t been a murder or robbery with a long barreled 3 shot shotgun in several years.
Personally, I’m ok around with gun deaths (non suicide division) around the 30-40k per year. ETA- that’s about 3x where we are now.
So you’re OK with the cost of guns being equivalent to the cost of cars? Does that mean you think the benefit of guns is equal to the benefit of cars? That’s absolutely laughable.
Meaning that a .357 revolver costs the same as a Lamborghini Hurican? Of course, not that seems crazy why would they even be in the same order of magnitude?
Nope, but I’d be ok with car deaths several of orders of magnitude higher. Car deaths are so rare they don’t even justify a second of thought per year and if be ok not thinking about gun deaths either.
No, the cost to society.
That explains a lot, actually. I think car deaths do justify “a second of thought per year”
Typical. Every firearm owner thinks they are a “responsible” gun owner. That they are a good guy with a gun. And the level of responsibility that comes with firearm ownership comes a pathetic level of responsibility much lower than that required to own and operate a vehicle.
And there is rarely any kind of discussion about having “common sense” limits on firearm ownership and associated responsibility because that obviously would lead to gun grabbing and a tyrannical government.
The “pro-death” side of the debate.
I don’t believe this to be true.
I know many gun owners who are for gun control.
Just because you want to be able to have a gun as a law abiding responsible citizen doesn’t mean that you want to make it easy for criminals, irresponsible people, or children to get ahold of them.
I do believe that your statement is used as a cudgel to try to prevent anyone from being allowed to speak about how to reduce the injury and death that comes from having such a prevalence of guns, and the ease by which they can be acquired, but it is a belief that is held strongly by those who refuse to entertain any possible mitigation of the damage that guns do to society.
It is entirely the pro-gun zealots who refuse to allow a middle ground here.
Someone who has half forgotten the gun they put in the nightstand is not a responsible gun owner.
This would be part of the education part that I entirely agree with the OP on.
It wouldn’t matter. If no democrat ever said anything about guns again, the pro-gun faction would still claim that they are out to get their guns.
It doesn’t matter what the reality is, they will make stuff up to keep up their persecution complex.
Yeah, I always hear from pro-gun advocates that the damage that the guns they advocate for cause too much damage to society for them to afford to be responsible for. Therefore, they should not be held responsible in any way for the damages that the guns they advocate for do to society.
Who says that the actual actor would be off the hook in any way? Someone uses a gun to commit a crime, they should be held responsible.
The problem is that people leave their guns unsecured in ways that make it extremely easy for a criminal to get their gun, and don’t want to take any sort of responsibility or accountability for it.
The OP suggests education, not just for non-gun owners, but also for gun owners. It seems pretty obvious that there are a lot of gun owners who think that they are responsible, but do irresponsible things like leave guns unsecured and unsupervised for months at a time.
Claims like this are exactly why such a conversation never goes anywhere. You claim to know the nefarious motives behind proposals, and use that mind reading ability to dismiss them out of hand.
Maybe stop imputing false motives to people, and a productive conversation could be had.
Or don’t, whatever.
You’re not responding to what I actually posted.
I didn’t speak of unsecured or inadequately secured weapons.
I own a cabin in northern Wisconsin. I keep hunting rifles and shotguns there, unloaded, secured in a safe. The dwelling also has high quality locks, cameras, and a security system. But nothing is perfectly secure no matter what. If a bugler breaks in and eventually is able to break into that safe and steal those arms some people would hold me responsible because I had the gall to own those guns in the first place. And that’s just Horseshit!
Call it what it fucking is: It’s another attempt to make lawfully owning firearms as miserable as possible.
I’d sincerely like to hear your suggestions on how to keep guns out of the hands of the criminal, the incompetent, and the grossly negligent. If gun owners come across as zealous and inflexible, it’s because almost all of the suggestions for preventing gun misuse seem to boil down to “make guns as difficult to own and carry as possible”. I’d welcome an exception to that.
Leaving your guns unattended for months at a time is NOT responsible gun ownership. Period, end of story.
Apparently murders by other means are meaningless to you.
Do you apply this standard to other things that can kill people, such as automobiles?
Hmm, deja vu…
That’s pure hysteria. If you’re suggesting that an item hasn’t been reasonably and responsibly secured when it’s locked in a safe, in a secured building, with a security system and cameras… that’s just silly.
By all means, you have my blessing to prosecute people who leave their guns inadequately secured. Even if it doesn’t actually end up being stolen and used in a crime! But don’t try to further burden people who have already invested money and effort in securing their property above and beyond what most homeowners do. Those are actually the last people who should be bothered.
You spoke of weapons that you claimed to leave unsupervised for months at a time.
That’s pretty unsecure to me.
Well, now you change it up a bit, that you do have them supervised by cameras and a security system.
That means that you would actually know when and how they were stolen.
That’s not the case at all
How you summed up what people would hold you responsible for is indeed horeshit.
Why call it that when that is not what it is? It is an attempt at finding a way of reducing the death and injury associated with guns in our society. Your constant need to impugn motives to those who actually care about life and limb is pretty frustrating, and it only proves that you have no care about the damage that your guns do, only that you have unfettered access at any time, any place, no matter the cost (to others).
Largely by asking gun owners to be responsible with their guns. To not sell or give them to criminals. To keep them locked up and secured.
I mean, if that is what you have decided is the motivation of those who want to see less death and injury from guns, there isn’t any sort of reason or debate that can make you stop believing that.
If people who are looking to decrease the damage done by guns in our society seem frustrated, it’s because all suggestions from pro gun advocates boil down to, “More guns, more guns, more guns.”
So, do you have any suggestions on how you can keep your guns out of the hands of the criminal, the incompetent, or the grossly negligent, or is it just a foregone conclusion that they will and that there is nothing that you can do about it?
This was in response to a guy saying “how am I supposed to know if the house I haven’t been to in 6 months was broken into 5 months ago?”. If you have safes and alarm systems that would let you know a break-in occurred right away so you can go check on your guns and inform the cops that they’ve been stolen, this doesn’t apply to you.
If your alarm system tells you your cabin was broken into and your response is “guess I’ll check on the guns when I’m up there next month”, you are NOT a responsible gun owner. If someone can break in and take your guns without you knowing, you are NOT a responsible gun owner.
And prosecuting them if and when they fail to do so.