My guess is most everyone who lives in a household with guns handles one of the guns eventually. I can’t think of anyone I know who does not take his family out plinking at least once. A lot of people who don’t have guns have at one time shot them or will at one time shoot them. I don’t think anyone can give a definitive estimate, but as I said in America I would guess somewhere around 75-80%. Heck even gun grabbers like Biden, Obama, and Peloci have shot guns. I’m open to other estimates but I would like to hear how you figure it. So regarding gun safety education I figure better safe then sorry, but it seems a lot of folks on the left here disagree.
This is why I get really depressed when I learn that the average American reads only one book a year. Since I read hundreds…that suggests that there are hundreds of people who don’t read any at all…
Hundreds? Shit, is that all? Hell, I read ten times…wait, does Japanese tentacle porn count as books? Because I can’t actually read Japanese…
I don’t figure it, because it would be nothing but a wild-ass guess pulled entirely from my nether regions. And taking the family out plinking is simply not DONE in my area. They’re very strongly into their gender roles round here, and guns are a Boy Thing. A guy might take his sons or nephews or grandsons out for a little target shooting, but the wife and daughters stay firmly in the house. Most of the women I know whose husbands hunt have never so much as laid a finger on any of the guns in the house, and the ones who have own guns of their own.
I personally have never touched any gun other than the BB gun my brother had (briefly, he was an asshole with it and it got confiscated) as a kid. (Because honestly, why would I? I don’t see the point in target shooting, and I don’t feel like I need protection from the big bad world.) Never had any formal training. I know the 4 Rules, though. My parents taught them to me, with my mom hammering them home with a pretty goddamn harrowing story about a family tragedy that happened because someone who grew up with guns in the house, who knew the safety rules, who was used to following them, had one moment when she ignored them.
Well that’s as it should be. Women aren’t in much danger of being victims of violent crimes with men around to protect them, so they really shouldn’t worry their pretty little heads over such things.
Dear America, the following stats aren’t so hard to research. They’ll help you consider the incident better than arguing for 4 pages:
- number of accidental discharges in a year
- injuries/fatalities caused by AD
- ratio of those killed intentionally to those killed accidentally.
Ah, its is my good amigo, Señor Moment. Where I can’t remember where I read this, about a bunch of amendments included in recent legislation that forbid the government from collecting any such data. Because freedom. No, wait, liberty.
Anybody? Beuller? Beaulah? Booyah?
Elucidator has admitted he does not care much if gun laws save lives but sounds like he’s hoping the above numbers are really high. Look how excited he is. What a sicko.
Yeah, like the global warming scientists “want” temperatures to rise, and “take back the night” feminists “want” rapes to occur, and people supporting reform of the Catholic Church “want” priests to molest kids.
But this is one of the staple “blood libels” of the gun culture: they imagine that we enjoy the very killings we seek most strongly to prevent.
Typical of the “projection psychology” of the American right wing. Obnoxious, noisome, tawdry, infantile, and odious. Masturbating with dead babies and everything. Sad when that’s what passes for reason among a significant sub-population, but democracy is inclusive, even if conservatism isn’t.
I don’t see any of those groups get all excited to take advantage of bad things like the gun grabbers.
Blood libel? So now the gun grabbers are victims like the Jews.
Glad I’m not one of those right wingers.
I haven’t read the study.
-
But let me get this straight. You’re implying that the authors are dishonest, but you’ve found some parts of the study that buttress your preconceptions, so you select those?
-
Missing data. Table 4, I understand, controls for confounding factors. That means it considers a wider range of variables. That means that if one studied characteristic of a respondent is missing, you have to drop the entire observation. That’s not “Manipulation”. That’s “Considering a wider range of factors at the cost of sample size.”
Now maybe you could say that the resulting sample is slanted in some way. But you haven’t tried to establish that. You’ve just tossed a result that doesn’t fit your preconceptions.
While I have the mike, I wouldn’t have a problem with teaching gun handling to high schoolers in communities where gun ownership is upwards of 70%. But vast parts of the US don’t have such an intense gun culture, so it seems to me that for them it would be a poor use of resources. As for the assertion that lots of people will touch a gun sometime, so what and cite? I’m not convinced “Touching a gun” puts you at substantial risk: it’s those with lots of exposure to guns, eg gun owners that need training.
I wouldn’t have the NRA teach the course though. It would be like having the tobacco lobby teach health classes or the Flat Earth Society teach astronomy.
You don’t see “gun grabbers” doing it either; you are making it up.
(Hint: you also don’t see any gun grabbers. No one in this thread, or any other thread here, has suggested seizure of firearms. Unlike conservatives, we really do understand “ex post facto.”)
Gun crime victims really are victims, but you can only sneer.
Please tell me you’re not really this stupid.
Gun-grabbers are Jews? Bubeleh, who nu?
Do so.
Pretty much, I don’t have particular problems with the pre-massaged numbers, though Kellerman didn’t report if the guns involved in the homicides were the ones in the home already or not. Check out the wiki article on Kellerman for more of the story. But I think a few things are particularly telling, like all the risk being associated with handguns and the lesser homicides in homes with rifles and shotguns.
Pretty convenient that he had to drop the data regarding long guns and didn’t show his math.
OK, so you’re not so interested in decreasing accidental gun deaths. That would take away from your liberal talking points. I get it.
It’s self evident. Lots more people handle guns at some point in their lives then own one.
Great, so if your child is over at a friends house who owns guns but is not trained in gun safety, do you think it would be better or worse if your son knew something about gun safety? Do you think it would be better that your sons friend were not taught gun safety?
This just shows how biased you are against guns. Tobacco is inherently harmful. Guns are not. Guns stop crimes and save lives every day, tobacco not so much. Guns are a constitutional right, tobacco isn’t.
Haha, that’s what you call being facetious. My girlfriend has three guns herself, but from what I can tell CrazyCatLady wouldn’t approve. She must live in Salt Lake City or something.
Of course guns aren’t “inherently” harmful! Why would anyone think a machine designed to punch holes in people would be inherently harmful?
Sure I do.
Well I do understand a number of gun grabbers have learned to disguise their ultimate wishes and hope incrementalism will lead them to their ultimate goals. But they let their feeling slip out here and there.
Of course gun crime victims are victims. And people who use guns to keep from being victims really are saved. Do you deny this fact? Or ignore this fact, that seems to be what you anti-gunners do. I think psychologists that’s called confirmation bias.
You mean like a knife?
Shit, you’re the mind reader, you tell me!