Sure! For as much as it counts in Canada. Again, like we discussed up-thread a little, comparing the US to Canada or England on firearms is like comparing us on pollution, health care or lots of other things - we’re just different.
So you going to vote (for as much as it counts here in the US) to preserve my right to carry or would you rather try to make me think more like you?
That I understand. If you go back through the thread I think most of us “pro-gun” understand that sort of reaction. Cop or civilian, gun or big-assed knife, unknown factors give us pause as well. But we’re all dealing with it and that’s the best anyone can do.
I dislike the idea that those of us who own guns and are comfortable around them have some sort of irrational love of them. OK - we both have extremists who fit the ideas we dislike. It happens like that.
That last part -------- very true. But again, both sides suffer from the same disease. If we want to discuss almost anything else in the universe, we could very well be on the same side (assuming of course that you are indeed a liberal hippie like me) - equal bricks in the same wall. But here we are going to disagree and I’m fine with that.
Yeah, it’s a statistical red herring - sure, drowning is more likely in that scenario. But, as a counterexample, last night my 15-month-old daughter found my iPhone on a counter, unlocked it, opened up the messaging app then wrote and sent a text to my wife* and was busily mashing out the next one before I got the phone away from her 45 seconds later. Is that easier or harder than firing a gun?
Admittedly she had seen me using the phone and thus had learned what to do. What if she’d ever seen me holding the gun? It’s not remotely outside the realm of possibility that a small child could do harm with a gun.
On another note, did I miss the details of the “COW” shootings or have we not had them yet?
This statistic doesn’t accurately represent the relative dangers of guns vs. bodies of water. Most kids are around water every single day - bathtubs, sinks, buckets, toilets, creeks, swimming pools, etc. Most kids are not sitting in a room with a gun every single day. Of course there are going to be fewer gun deaths than drownings. That doesn’t mean that if a child was sitting in a room with both a half-full bathtub and a gun, that the child would be more likely to drown than shoot himself.
Here again I can argue that it is you creating the self-justifications and weird hypotheticals for seeing a difference. The simple matter is that I would hope you know anyone really well and have a high level of trust in them before allowing your kids in their homes - not just those who own firearms. Maybe my thinking is a little abnormal for today and this current society but it worked pretty well keeping me safe when I was growing up. And it worked for the kids I’ve been responsible for. It just seems more logical to protect them from all threats rather than to single out one for special attention.
Yeah, I realized that and missed the edit window.
Probably ill-considered, but it was intended as a “swimming pools are as far away from a half-filled tub as my firearms are from an unattended, loaded pistol.”
Eh, either way, no worries. I would expect any parent to do serious due diligence if they were aware I had firearms, as I certainly would do said diligence on any household where my children reported knowing there were guns. My safety precautions are such that I intend that my OWN hypothetical children will be unaware that I own firearms (“Daddy, what’s in the big metal box?” “Daddy’s stuff.”) until such time as I’m ready to teach them proper handling and use. This might be overoptimistic, but on the other hand my mother-in-law (rabidly anti-gun) hasn’t figured out that her little girl lives in a house with guns yet, either, and it’s been five years now.
Remember, that is Michigan - a fairly well-armed state by any definition. I’m not sure I would bet that kids aren’t around guns as much as they are water.
I would be curious some day to see the actual numbers, not someones reporting or interpretation, but the actual reality of how many households in the country have some kind of operational gun. Legal and illegal combined. I think the number would be high enough to surprise us both.
Doesn’t mean the opposite, either. Now, granted, I don’t like the hypothetical anyway, I’m just not very confident in the ability of a toddler (which I interpreted as 2-3 years old) to unsafe and fire a modern semi-automatic pistol in storage configuration in any reasonable amount of time. An older kid, even a kid who’s four to six years old, if they’ve seen cop shows or something where firearms were used realistically–yeah, significantly greater danger.
The biggest thing I had when thinking about the gun is that it would require more physical strength to manipulate the steps required to unsafe, cock, and fire it. I have my doubts your daughter at that age would have the hand strength/dexterity required to pull back the slide after taking off the safety on a modern semi-automatic–and part of it is a “heck, my wife has trouble with that kind of thing, and she’s a grown adult who opens jars as well as I do”.
In retrospect, I imagine a lot of the reactions to the hypothetical were what we brought into it–I hear “loaded gun” and the image in my mind is of a modern semi-automatic pistol with no rounds in the chamber, the hammer down, and the safety on. From that status there are a few steps you have to do in the right order to get the gun into a ready-to-fire state, all requiring some degree of dexterity and familiarity with the concept of how pistols work. I imagine everyone’s mileage severely varied.
Sure. If I lived where everyone could be carrying I’d carry one too. Never know when someone might take exception to my driving.
I think I see your point of view. Although I could continue to go on that either A) the pistols you’ve seen suffered from manufacturer’s defects, B) physical control of the gun/tool was lost to someone with different intent, or C) the motive and intent to use the tool were there, but the ability to accurately do so were lacking.
We can go 'round and 'round in circles, but I wont. I’ll just maintain that a gun is a tool which is just one ingredient in a shooting.
Tripler
This is kind of delving into a GD thread, isn’t it?
The main ingredient though, yes? It’s hard to have a shooting without one.
Yeah, but after that you need motive. You can have the ability (i.e. possess a firearm) without the motive and not be a danger to anyone. You can have the motive, but not the abilitie–i.e. some dumb schmuck who wishes he could shoot someone, but doesn’t have the gun. Either way, there’s no crime being committed.
Tripler
Now conspiracy . . . I’m fuzzy on that one (no, I’m not a lawyer).
I think you’re focusing on intent and overlooking the human element. Let me toss out a few scenarios that have nothing to do with gun function, and result in an innocent person getting killed:
a) a parent is putting his pistol away into a locked cabinet. One of her children lets out a blood-curdling scream. She sets the gun down to run to the aid of the toddler in trauma. In the meantime, the older kid comes upon the gun and shoots his friend through the eye.
b) a father hears a struggle and walks in on his daughter being raped, but it turns out she snuck her boyfriend in for a quickie. Gunfire. Dead kid.
c) Guy’s wife tells him she’s having an affair and she’s leaving him. Guy gets uncustomarily shitfaced and takes out his gun and plugs her. You might not call that accidental, but I’d argue that he was out of his mind with booze, jealousy and anger, but never truly intended to kill her.
This nails it, at least as far as the point I was trying to make.
People who have no experience with guns tend to assume that “a loaded gun” is just ready to “go off” at the slightest touch.
Bullshit. They don’t know about the different parts of the gun - they don’t know what the hell “slide” means in the context of a handgun. They don’t realize that it’s held in place by an extremely stout spring and that to pull it back requires arm strength, and grip strength, not to mention knowledge of how it works, that no toddler on earth is going to possess. Show me a toddler who can pull back the hammer on a revolver, for that matter.
I know for me in Situation a), said gun is going back in the holster, probably while I’m on a run to find out what the screaming is–because it almost certainly can’t be worse than the potential consequences of an unsafe gun lying around, and the five seconds it takes to either lock it back up or the one second it takes to put it back in whatever you were carrying it in before you went to put it away are well spent.
Situation a) and b), in my opinion, would both be helped immensely by some kind of mandatory training including safety precautions and shoot/no-shoot decisions. (which I support)
Situation c) differs primarily in deadliness from the same kind of assault committed with a knife or tire iron or car, and I would argue that removing a single weapon choice doesn’t appreciably address the situation in a meaningful manner.
But that’s where I think you’re wrong–you cannot divorce the two. You can’t have intent without the human element, nor the human element without the intent. By simply handling a loaded weapon, you intend to assume the risk and responsibility of that machine functioning. Either way, the machine will not function unless some sort of input–from a human–is applied to the machine (usually through the form of pulling the trigger). And yes, this is all semantics, but in some other publications (for weapons and trigger systems) it all became clear to me. Bear with . . .
But did the kid intend to do so, or was he screwing around? While the kid didn’t intend to shoot his buddy, the weapon wouldn’t would have operated if the kid wasn’t screwing around, and hadn’t “accidentally” given the ‘intent-to-fire’ signal to the gun.
The father was acting in what he believed was reasonable. It sounds like he legitimately thought his daughter was being raped. He made that decision, and used a tool to set his decision and intent in motion. You can’t fault the machine for that.
Again, what did he mean to do? Doesn’t matter. He sent an ‘intent-to-fire’ signal to the gun, and the machine operated. He may not have fully appreciated the consequences of his actions with his likker-addled mind, but that’s a human element issue, not a fault of the machine.
I appreciate what you’re saying, and agree with you that they’re all horrible scenarios. But the root cause of each of them you laid out was a human element, all of which carried a specific intent. But the gun can’t distinguish between joking around and defensive/offensive action. It just functions. It’s just a tool.
Tripler
No different than a brick of C-4. It just functions.
Situations a and b…you mean you HOPE you will have the presence of mind to do things correctly and safely. However, this is precisely how accidents happen. That’s why they’re called “accidents.” They happen all the time. Well-meaning, well-trained people with a momentary lapse of reason enduring a broken heart and regret that will never end.
Situation c: sure, he could have used something else, but both non-gun situations have more opportunities to change one’s mind because they are not split-second, unretactable decisions.
You’re wrong that you cannot have human element without intent. Screwing around, particularly with very young children, has no element of intent any more than when a child touches a hot stove, wanders into the street, or puts the car in neutral and rolls down the driveway. Curiosity kills those cats.
It’s not reasonable if he didn’t intend to kill THAT person at THAT moment. He didn’t know what he was shooting at. It doesn’t matter that the machine didn’t make the decision. A fallible human made a wrong decision that was carried out by a machine. Without the gun, he couldn’t shoot the wrong person. His bad decision-making skills would not have caused the death of someone he didn’t want to kill
You have not proven that any of the people in these scenarios wanted someone to die, and yet innocent lives were taken because the tool worked as designed. Pretty scary, if you ask me.