Gun nuts threaten gun store owner for selling gun they don't like

[Bone]

@Measure_for_Measure

My take is that guns by no means level the playing field: they give an edge to the person lying in ambush. That could be the homeowner or the crook.

This is an odd way of looking at it. Do you apply this rationale to the police as well? Do they only give advantage to the police when they are lying in ambush?

Here’s the list that you, me and Damuri were interested in, adapted to the 10-14 age group:

[ul]
[1] Unintentional Motor Vehical Traffic 452 deaths
[2] Unintentional Drowning 117
[3] Unintentional Suffocation 48 –> About the same as adjusted figures for unintentional firearms
[4] Unintentional Fire/Burn 46
[5] Unintentional Other Land Transport 42
[6] Unintentional Poisoning 40
[/ul]

Even if I accept the adjusted figure (which I don’t), are you saying that 48 deaths, however tragic, is sufficient to infringe on a fundamental, enumerated constitutional right? I think your answer is yes and mine is no.

This bag is not a toy: suffocation. Kids learn about fire safety. Go carts are regulated. Child safety caps exist, though frankly I can’t see how they would apply to the 10-14 set. I wouldn’t call any of these negligible and all receive attention and regulation from the authorities.

None of these are constitutionally protected. If you want to draw an analogy you’d at least have to compare it to something that rises to that level. Writing books or voting perhaps.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission regulated pool, toys and all-terrain vehicles. They are expressely prohibited from regulating guns and indeed IIRC a gun manufacturer is not liable if their product blows up in a customer’s hand.

While it’s true that firearms do not fall under the purview of the Consumer PRoduct Safety Commission, that is primarily because that duty falls under the jurisdiction of the BATFE. It’s not some conspiracy to have the safety of guns unchecked. In addition, your statement that a gun manufacturer is not liable if their product blows up in a customer’s hand is factually incorrect. You may be thinking of the PLCAAthat exempted manufacturers from suits of negligence in using their products. This does not however eliminate liability from defective products.

Guns as a whole are safer more now than ever. They do what they are intended to do and don’t do what they are not intended to do. Of course they are inherently dangerous products but that they are used to commit crimes or used in unintentional deaths does not mean they have manufacturing defects.

They do it all the time. A seven year old runs to a teacher and tells her that there’s a creep hanging out at the edge of the playground. Adult fended off.

You did this previously, and here again so I’m not sure if it’s intentional. You were responding to my post that said: " It’s also ludicrous to say that a 12 year old can physically fend off a grown adult." Running to a teacher to tell them something is not physically fending off a grown adult. Physically fending someone off requires, you know, physically doing it. Your contention is that a 12 year old child could do this to an adult if the child had proper training. While there may be prodigies out there that can do this, to say that as a matter of course is absurd.

Bone: The proper figure really isn’t unintentional gun death/total death. If you want to compare risks you have to put exposure in the denominator. By way of analogy, the number of people who die from drinking paint thinner is miniscule. But that doesn’t imply that I should habitually add turpentine to my beer.

Again, you have taken my clear statement as a comparison to overall deaths and somehow misconstrued that to be a comparison of your choosing. That’s fine if that’s the point you want to make, but it is in no way a disagreement with what I’ve stated.

In the above context you would want to calculate 10-14 gun accident deaths as a fraction of households with a) 10-14 year olds and b) guns inside. That gives you a rough idea of the risks of owning guns. Even better would be to break down homes with locked and unlocked guns. Also single guns and arsenals: 6% of all gun households own 75% of the nation’s guns. There are patterns to be explored.

Unfortunately we can only use the data we have. And that data says that unintentional firearm deaths of children is a rare occurrence. Given the prevalence of guns in the country, that says more about the relative safe practices of gun owners than anything else. We can always strive for improvement - but any additional measures in the form of reduction of freedoms and curtailing of rights needs to be weighed against the alleged benefits. I listed the stats above. 606 unintentional firearm deaths out of 180K unintentional deaths.

If the NRA was like Consumer Reports or the Berkeley Wellness Letter, 2 pro-consumer organizations, then such a study would have been done. That’s basically my private sector solution: support a gun study group that isn’t culturally averse to scholarly investigation and rational practice.

If the results were favorable to firearm ownership than they would be attacked non-stop by gun control advocates, and vice versa. Look at how studies on defensive gun uses are attacked. In the last several decades there have been a dozen studies that all point to very high numbers. The result is a questioning of every study. Now, they could be flawed, sure. But they are directionally consistent. My point isn’t to argue DGU, but to illustrate that studies would be fruitless.

In the meantime I’ll ID NRA supporters as crackpots and crackpot enablers. It’s accurate and part of the plan.

Good thing I’m not an NRA member. They are too moderate. I’ll return the favor and identify gun control advocates as fascists in the making. Is that helpful?