Absurd? No, in fact I’m in 100% agreement with you on this point. As a gun owner it is my sole responsibly to assure that my firearms are always secure, every single minute of every single day. I have a duty to ensure that one of my firearms never ends up in the hands of a person that shouldn’t have it. When analyzing the school shooting in CT, it if my belief that Adam Lanza’s (I hope I got his name right, it’s late and I’m tired) mother is the person must responsible for that tragedy. Her neglect cost her life as well. She has a son that she knew was mentally unstable, yet for some baffling reason she left get firearms unsecured and accessible by him.
**My firearms are my responsibility every single moment of every single day. **All of my guns are kept in a locked safe and only my wife and I have access to that safe. When I transport my firearms in a vehicle each is kept with a keyed trigger lock as I know that there is a remote chance someone could steal my car. I have never sold one of my firearms, but if I did I would only do so to a gun dealer, for I know when it would be resold that the person purchasing it would need to pass a background check. Even with the security measures I have taken there is still a remote possibility that an unauthorized person could come into possession of my firearms. But to do so they would have to break into my home and somehow manage to get access to my safe. I have done all I can to protect them. Barring this unlikely event, the only way for a “bad guy” to come into possession of my weapons is for me to give it to them. If that were to ever happen then I have failed as a gun owner and I would deserve any punishment that would come my way. Owning a firearm is a huge responsibility, one that I and the majority like me take very seriously.
Enjoy the sport of shooting, my Grandfather taught my dad, he taught me and I have taught my kids as they will one day teach theirs. Please don’t call me a “gun nut”, because I am anything but that. I have many friends and neighbors who own firearms and every single one that I know if safe, sane and takes the responsibly of owning a firearm seriously. I am more than willing to work with you or anyone else to solve this terrible problem of gun violence. But the issue runs much deeper than the mere ownership of firearms. I don’t know what the answer is, but I’m sure if we all work together instead of arguing with each other we can come up with a solution that ensures our safety without depriving good, caring and responsible people the enjoyment of their firearms.
Isn’t the real question “have stronger gun laws reduced the murder rate per capita in those countries?” IIf they have fewer murders, the laws have made things safer. Otherwise, they’ve simply changed the means why the same number of people are being killed, rather than made things safer.
That’s especially the case in instances like the one fomenting all this discussion - spree killers have decided to kill already. They’re typically seeking retribution against some segment of society that they feel wronged them (bullies, women, minorities, nurses, whatever) and they will lash out. I just don’t see what’s better about reading a bunch of people were stabbed, run over or blown up rather than shot.
And for the record, I’m not a gun owner and I’m an advocate for stronger gun laws. My personal philosophy is not to try and stop people from doing what they will, but rather hold them to a high level of responsibility for those actions.
Remember however that the annual number of murders has been steadily dropping in the US since 1993 without the inclusion of newer, better, and stronger gun laws.
That seems to indicate that
A. Gun safety is decreasing, or
B. Some homicides are being erroneously listed as accidents, or
C. A combination of the both.
And thank you for correcting the impression given out that gun homicides have been decreasing steadily up to the present day. Knowing that they plateaued in 2000 putws a decidedly different spin on things.
If firearms deaths have stayed pretty much the same for the last 14 years but trauma medicine has improved over that period of time, what does that indicate about the number of accidents over that period?
If the trauma medicine is better but the number of deaths remain the same, then how could the number of accidents be anything but higher? If the number of accidents have been the same, then more people would have been saved and the number of deaths would have continued to decrease as the medicine got better.
that gun homicides have decreased steadily from 1993 until the present day. I had not known that that had actually plateaued at the turn of the century.
It’s not even implied, it’s flat-out stated. But JXJohns has agreed that gun death rates dropped from 1993 to around 2000 and have stayed about the same since then.
Arent you forgetting to factor in the rise in population over the years? If the number of incidents is roughly equal and our population has increased by millions then we can actually see a decrease in the percentage of crimes with guns even though we have both more guns and people.