I oppose your plan of universal school based gun safety training. I endorse mandatory gun safety training and competency testing, with compulsory retesting requirements, for all gun owners (and users).
There are plenty of firearms in this country, in some regions it might all be assured a child will see his dad’s hunting rifle or handgun at some point. I know I did. Schools have fire and tornado drills, teach kids not to touch downed power lines, how to tell if a dog is dangerous, etc. I don’t think most kids will experience these dangers first hand, but society deems safety coverage prudent. But if we were to teach children the dangers of playing with dad’s firearms, it suddenly becomes “marketing”? Guns are like Voldemort now, and shall not be named? Your the one injecting the political agenda.
I can just imagine the outrage if schools started teaching kids that guns are dangerous.
Haven’t seen it? There’s a link to the article right there in the story, dumbass. See, I insult you because you do stupid shit like this. I insult you because efforts at reason have no effect on you. You are scared into gun nuttery; you cannot be reasoned out of it.
No, guns are things that most people wi never have a use for. But I’ll go along with your proposition : I would strongly endorse a mandatory training program for all kids living in a household with a gun. Do you?
When you are answering the question of whether the population of CHL holders is more law abiding than the general population, why would you control so that you are no longer comparing CHL holders to the general population but to a subset of the population?
That is not the question.
Because the implication is that it has something to do with CHL licensure, when that may be completely irrelevant or even may mask the opposing effect. That’s why any research controls for potential third variables. This is another example of you saying something really dumb.
For example, pretend that living in socioeconomic disadvantage causes increased criminality. Now pretend that the segment of people getting CHL lives in disproportionately advataged circumstances. That may very well make it look like they are less disposed to criminality.
However, it could very well be that people who get CHLs are in fact more disposed to criminality that people who live in the same SES circumstances but who don’t get CHL. It’s very possible that getting a CHL is an actual marker for risk that is outweighed by the effects of ses.
See, I have to explain fundamentals like this to you, but I guarantee that you will turn around and say again in the future that I have nothing but insults. This will again be a lie, but you will do it nevertheless because you are too stupid to retain this knowledge.
You never asked me what I propose to reduce gun injuries.
Further, are you open to a proposal that does not include total elimination of guns from the law abiding citizens?
See post 5143, to which you responded. jesus, these people are fucking lampposts.
Yes.
Every time we propose modest regulation of guns, all the gun nuts start yammering about the slippery slope, and how it is just the first step to confiscation.
You aren’t one of those, are you?
What do you propose to reduce gun injuries? And is it realistic?
Further, do you think such a thing is even possible?
Oh - now you think we have a dialogue, when you want your questions answered?
I’m willing to answer your questions but we don’t have a dialogue established yet. Remember, it goes both ways.
So that would be No, to each.
When you assume…
You seem pretty bad at responding to inquiries yourself.
It cannot be about a slippery slope, on either side. It does have to be about compromise on both sides. So, no, I’m not one of those who claim or act as if it’s a slippery slope.
I don’t live here. I live more over on Thread Games. Just ask Elvis. Sometimes it’s been a few hours, if not longer, since I’ve checked this thread and I see many new back-and-forths and I don’t read them all. But if you have something to ask, please, fire away. In the meantime I’ll skim over the thread, looking for questions…
Yeah, Elvis asked me questions but he’d ignored my earlier inquiries. That’s when I told him there wasn’t a dialogue, not yet. Why should I answer his questions when he never answered mine, and I was the first of either of us to ask.
Start with training. Lots of it.
I didn’t grow up around guns. The first guns I shot were in boot camp. While I was in the Marine Corps I never owned a firearm. When I retired I didn’t own one. It wasn’t until 10 years after retiring that I bought my gun, a handgun.
When I was in the Marines one of my side jobs, not my main USMC job, was taking my unit through the rufle and pistol qual range, and teach marksmanship and gun safety.
When you’re a Marine your gun never leaves your side. You eat with it, sleep with it, shit with it. It is DRILLED into you that your weapon never leaves your side. I see how sloppy with keeping track of where their gun(s) is (are).
Weapon accountability is one starting point. Too many people aren’t aware of where their gun is, at all times.