:rolleyes:
The fact that anyone can get a gun does not make a gun different from other dangerous household items, because anyone can also get other dangerous household items.
[/QUOTE]
Please read the other posts in this thread to find out why this was and remains a bullshit argument.
Guns are far more dangerous in the hands of the careless or stupid than any household item.
If I’m not mistaken, more children die from drowning than by accidental gunfire in the home; and last time I checked, water is a common household item.
If I was forced to choose between leaving a toddler in a room with a loaded gun and a room with a bathtub half full of water, I would choose the gun in a heartbeat. In order for the child to kill himself with the gun, he’d have to first turn off the safety, then aim it at himself, then (assuming he knew how to fire it) put his finger on the trigger and pull. In order to kill himself with the bathtub all he’d have to do is walk into it.
You ever had kids? Just trying to calibrate my flabbergastometer here.
I have to say he’s right–a bathtub half-full of water is going to be statistically WAY more dangerous to a toddler than the average safed handgun, all the more so because the average toddler with no experience of what a handgun is will be less likely to fuss with one while they’re far more likely to splash around.
Never had toddlers, babysat 'em for years for my cousins, and amazingly enough never managed to leave 'em in a room with a gun, a half-full bathtub, or for that matter a touchy cat.
What’s so surprising about it? I’ve pretty clearly illustrated WHY a tub of water is more dangerous to a toddler than a handgun. That you would be “flabbergasted” that I would think so just illustrates the irrational fear to which you are so clearly held hostage.
You really think it would be easier for a toddler to take the safety off of a pistol, point it at himself, cock it, and then pull the trigger, than to fall into a tub of water?
Sorry, please do answer the question. Have you ever had kids?
Since I answered your question, can you answer mine of “why is that relevant”?
Don’t remember you asking that; don’t remember speaking with you in the first place, for that matter.
Uh, okay, it’s a discussion board, I was expressing my opinion that Argent’s right, and I answered your question, and now I have a followup question for you.
I’d leave the gun in the room because it’s easier to place out of reach than a bathtub.
Speaking of guns and drowning, how many children go swimming and don’t drown each year? Saying ‘more people drown than get shot’ doesn’t illustrate the safety of firearms very well at all. What if 500 children are shot but only 2500 bullets are fired such that they could possibly kill a child, but only 1000 children out of 25 million swimmers - potential floaters all - drown? Swimming’s obviously safer in this example. Tricky things, numbers.
Have you ever tried to “just point and click”? Odds are the result won’t be a kill. Just look at the track record of the average gang-banger or the “shells fired ratio to enemy killed” records from any war.
Again, I understand your point. But again, your fear shouldn’t be the firearm. The same people are going to be just as dangerous to you even if you could disarm them. The only people you could influence are those who strictly believe in the rule of law and they aren’t liable to be a threat to you even if they had WMDs available.
I definitely wouldn’t dispute that either, in the absence of actual statistics. Argent’s main point, I think, is that guns are not EXCEPTIONALLY dangerous in the absence of murderous intent, just that they are of the same order of magnitude of danger as other potentially dangerous things in most cases. I’m not necessarily sure I agree with him, but it does make me want to look up statistics to see whether it’s more dangerous from an injuries-per-year standpoint to have a gun or, say, stairs–I’ve slipped and fallen down stairs exactly twice more than I’ve had gun accidents. 
My point is also that the anti-gun side usually operates from a mommy-knows-best, knee-jerk and impulse-driven mentality, instead of thinking things through logically and reasonably, as is illustrated clear as a crystal by our little exchange with Koxinga.
I think this calls for the least ethical study ever conducted. 
Although I can’t find a cite… I can’t blame them, just regarding the nature, it would seem they are more likely to be killed by a gun in a crime of passion. Most crimes of passion have a woman as a player… regardless of instrument of death. There is certainly a gender bias. Soccer GUn Mom was one of them.
Eh, I’ve encountered knee-jerkers on both sides, I’m not willing to hang that label on anyone outside of the Pit at this point.
Sorry, if you could please answer the question: have you ever had children of your own?
Never! Poorly educated, maybe. But sheeple? Never. Actually chances are I have as much faith in the law as you do. I certainly obey it quite well in the manner in which I keep and maintain everything I own - not just my guns. I hope you do as well. Where we differ is in the Rule of Law; in a belief that others will obey the law as we do and that society/government will somehow enforce that observance without exception. That isn’t going to happen. The Supreme Court several years back found that the police and government in general has no obligation to protect you or I. Who is responsible for that I don’t believe they decided - but it isn’t the cops or elected officials. Until a better alternative comes along or all the swords are beaten into plowshares, I’ll stick with what I know and that is self defense.
You anti-gun chest thumpers - you’re all the same! If someone isn’t totally reliant on others for everything, they annoy you by just by existing, don’t they? I would put a little “wink” in here but I can’t quite figure out which one is the wink on this screen.
I apologize for picking on you a little. Its why I tend to avoid these discussions in other areas of this board. I’m not going to change your mind and you aren’t going to change mine. Most stats I see (from both sides of the discussion) say about 10% of the population feels as I do and about 10% as you do. The other 80% waffle between both sides and being sick of the entire discussion. I jumped in because the OP concerned a specific class or type of “anti” I’m curious about. Some day we’ll find a place to discuss that without both of us drifting.
I was responding to your exact words… oh forget it you’re not even listening to* yourself.*
Are you deliberately only responding to people you think you can make look bad, or what?