Toddler kills himself with mother's gun

[fuzzybabybunny]

Did you even read my post? Are you completely ignoring how your proposed changes wouldn't affect illegal gun use?

You site an example which contradicts your point. AUS significantly reduced available guns which led to significantly reduced illegal gun use.

Your proposal will not reduce available guns. It'll reduce accidents gun death, which is so insignificant it should be only monitored.

Then you made the amazingly out of touch statement that what works for AUS will work for the US.

Go look it up:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
Page 19-22, table 10

Accidental discharge of firearms (W32-W34)
505

If whatever change you enact is 100% effect it would have saved 505 lives in 2013. Out of 130K total accidental deaths.

You know what, you have convinced me. This is totally a subject worthy of national, wait not, constitutional attention. While we're at it, we can set the bar there at 500/year. Anything causing more immediately requires constitutional amendments to correct it.

That, or you're being ignorant.

Where did I say that the US should pass a law banning all guns and to have all the citizens return their guns? I didn't.

I cited an example of another country and what happened in that country. I did not say that it would pass in the US (it won't, there's not enough societal and political will).

This time I was responding to your quoted comment about reducing ILLEGAL gun use by decreasing the gun pool and how it won't work because it goes against the Constitution, which I remind you can be changed.

In my previous post I was talking about proposals to decrease ACCIDENTAL gun deaths, and only that.

In this post I'm talking about both.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

I just heard an ad for a gun range that was offering exactly that. With every new gun purchase. Not sure what you consider "comprehensive" but it was CCW class + range time with an instructor.

An ad to bring in new customers with free services by some store in some un-named location is hardly the same as a government mandate to train citizens on safely exercising their current Constitutional right.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

I always love the let's make guns illegal crap.

Yes...because making guns illegal will fix the crime right? Wait...murder is illegal, armed robbery is illegal, yet these thing still happen.... let's think about that.

I used to think this way until I looked at the data and how the market affects the prevalence of illegal activities.

 

[Phoenix86]

Where did I say that the US should pass a law banning all guns and to have all the citizens return their guns? I didn't.

I cited an example of another country and what happened in that country. I did not say that it would pass in the US (it won't, there's not enough societal and political will).

This time I was responding to your quoted comment about reducing ILLEGAL gun use by decreasing the gun pool and how it won't work because it goes against the Constitution, which I remind you can be changed.

In my previous post I was talking about proposals to decrease ACCIDENTAL gun deaths, and only that.

In this post I'm talking about both.

You brought up AUS as an example of how it works. If you don't think it'll work in the US, fine, so why bring it up?

Yes, if you destroy all guns you will reduce gun use. Thanks. Might as well state water is wet. Yes, the constitution can be changed, but as you just said, that's not going to happen here.

Done with your circle jerk about illegal use?

Back to accidental gun use, my point is you're looking to reduce 500 deaths per year. ANY gun legislation (much less a constitutional change) would take massive effort to enact, and would affect millions of people.

You want to expend massive effort and affect millions of people to potentially save 500 people.

Won't someone think of the children?

Please. Never. Vote. Again.

 

[Phoenix86]

An ad to bring in new customers with free services by some store in some un-named location is hardly the same as a government mandate to train citizens on safely exercising their current Constitutional right.

You're right. It's way different. It's provided by the market, which means is way less expensive. It's also simple, no constitutional change needed.

So, simple, not government related, timely, free and you think it's not enough. This is why people have problems with gun control. It's never enough or simple.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Would it hurt? Probably not but it isn't necessary either. Once you are ingrained with those simple rules you don't forget them.

I took a hunter safety course back in the early 90s to get my hunting license but apart from that, I have had no formal firearm safety training. And I'd say that 80% of the hunter safety course was in survival techniques and had nothing to do with guns.

There is a 20 question test you have to take when buying a handgun in CA but it is ridiculously easy to pass. I hadn't bought a gun in more than a decade and hadn't studied at all for this test and aced it, not a single question did I get wrong.

How does one get ingrained with these simple rules? Yes, by definition, ingrained means you won't forget it. You still have to get ingrained first though, no?

I'm sure that after this accident the mother now has this "ingrained" in her.

Your examples of the tests you took simply go to show that the tests are inadequate in terms of testing safety.

Parents know not to leave their kids in a hot car when they leave their car to go grab something. Still, every year many parents, probably because they've got something very pressing on their mind of are new and momentarily slip into their pre-children state, close the door to the car with the kid still in the car. Most of them probably never make it to the door of the grocery store before they realize their error, but the point is that they still erred. It was momentary. It's understandable. Humans make mistakes.

I've been a diver for years. Many of my dives are freediving where I go down without a tank. A cardinal rule of freediving is to always look up first before you start to make your ascent. Pretty standard stuff and after years of diving and hundreds of dives it was pretty ingrained in me.

I stopped diving for half a year and then went to a beach to go diving for abalone. On my ascent I didn't look up for whatever reason (I was probably out of practice despite this being common sense and despite making it a habit after hundreds of dives.) My weight belt got caught on some nasty kelp that prevented me from reaching the surface and after a few moments of terror I came to my senses and ditched my weight belt, but not before I came close to never being able to undo my mistake.

Is practice necessarily prevention? No. But like I said, it helps.

Luckily freediving is something where the only person I can injure is myself if I do something wrong, so I can understand why mandatory practice and refreshers can be deemed unnecessary - although to be perfectly honest if I had had a good head on my shoulders at the time I would have done a "checkout dive" by myself in a pool or something before going out.

If I'm SCUBA diving with a buddy, where my failure could mean his/her life, I would demand that I get back into practice and I wouldn't dive with someone who was out of practice.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

You brought up AUS as an example of how it works. If you don't think it'll work in the US, fine, so why bring it up?

Yes, if you destroy all guns you will reduce gun use. Thanks. Might as well state water is wet. Yes, the constitution can be changed, but as you just said, that's not going to happen here.

Done with your circle jerk about illegal use?

Back to accidental gun use, my point is you're looking to reduce 500 deaths per year. ANY gun legislation (much less a constitutional change) would take massive effort to enact, and would affect millions of people.

You want to expend massive effort and affect millions of people to potentially save 500 people.

Won't someone think of the children?

Please. Never. Vote. Again.

Where did I say that we should do what AUS did? I provided an example to illustrate that it won't be the end of the world if it were to somehow happen. I don't recall saying "WE SHOULD BAN ALL GUNS."

I understand your sentiments about not wanting me to vote, but even you understand that it's my right to. And of course I'm going to. *shrugs*

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

You're right. It's way different. It's provided by the market, which means is way less expensive. It's also simple, no constitutional change needed.

So, simple, not government related, timely, free and you think it's not enough. This is why people have problems with gun control. It's never enough or simple.

First, because this is a free market, there usually needs to be an economical reason for a particular business to offer this service.

- Maybe customers have asked for this.

- Maybe there's a dip or lull or perceived future drop in sales and the store wants something to sweeten the deal and set itself apart from the competition (or at least be on par with).

- Maybe the store thinks it can allay people's fears of possible accidental deaths from buying their guns by providing this free training.

- Maybe the store feels it is their moral obligation to provide training and eat the cost (unlikely from a free market standpoint).

- Maybe it's a mix of the above.

This one store seems to have come up with a reason. This. One. Store.

I'm 100% sure there are other stores who offer this. Can the free market and profit-driven decisions be enough to make such offers widespread though?

 

[Phoenix86]

Where did I say that we should do what AUS did? I provided an example to illustrate that it won't be the end of the world if it were to somehow happen. I don't recall saying "WE SHOULD BAN ALL GUNS."

I understand your sentiments about not wanting me to vote, but even you understand that it's my right to. And of course I'm going to. *shrugs*

Literally no one thinks the world will end if guns were banned and destroyed. I'll wait until you make a coherent argument how AUS doing what they did relates to the US, outside a vacuum.

Uninformed voting is basically why bad politicians/laws get in place. Uninformed votes vote with their hearts. God bless them.

 

[Phoenix86]

I'm 100% sure there are other stores who offer this. Can the free market and profit-driven decisions be enough to make such offers widespread though?

Holy shit that's rich.

You ignore everything I say about how there are only 500 accidental deaths last year and how that's such an insignificant number we should DO NOTHING. Then, you question a market approach as not being enough.

How about we just monitor the issue and do something when it's an actual problem and ignore sensational stories like This. One. Example.

edit: Accidental drowning is over 6x the rate of accidental gun discharge. Vehicle accidents are 75x the rate. Actually, looking at the list of accidental deaths... Guns are the lowest BY FAR.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Holy shit that's rich.

You ignore everything I say about how there are only 500 accidental deaths last year and how that's such an insignificant number we should DO NOTHING. Then, you question a market approach as not being enough.

How about we just monitor the issue and do something when it's an actual problem and ignore sensational stories like This. One. Example.

edit: Accidental drowning is over 6x the rate of accidental gun discharge. Vehicle accidents are 75x the rate. Actually, looking at the list of accidental deaths... Guns are the lowest BY FAR.

And we keep trying to lower those numbers too. Doing nothing isn't really a very good option IMO.

Comparing cars and accidental drownings to accidental gun deaths is really stupid IMO. 70% of the planet is covered in water and cars are pretty much required to transport people to and from work/school/shopping etc. Vehicles are not designed to kill and they are heavily regulated. And water is freaking everywhere (except California)... these things are not going to change nor can we change our dependence on them. Guns are not really necessary for day to day life in this country. It's an apples to oranges comparison.

 

[Phoenix86]

And we keep trying to lower those numbers too. Doing nothing isn't really a very good option IMO.

But 505 is a real number, and it's significantly small enough to not change the constitution over. I didn't suggest doing nothing, just that it's more viable than anything FBB is bringing up. As I said, I'm all for reasonable legislation.

Show me reasonable legislation that actually addresses issues caused by guns, not "assault" weapon bans, or mag limits, or any of the other feel good legislation we currently get.

 

[blankslate]

No, it really doesn't. There are basically three cardinal rules of safe gun handling.

1) Treat every gun as if it was loaded and always check to make sure it is not loaded when someone hands you a gun.
2) Do not point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot (I don't care if it is unloaded-you NEVER point a gun at another person).
3) Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.

Not sure what more you would need to know. If you follow these simple rules 100% of the time, you will never have an accident.

That's a big if and there are famous examples though fortunately fairly rare enough examples of "trained" personnel who get complacent and either they or someone else is injured or killed

Hell one allowed a tragedy to happen which became the subject of this thread. If they weren't familiar with gun safety then that was a major failure point here.


...

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Holy shit that's rich.

You ignore everything I say about how there are only 500 accidental deaths last year and how that's such an insignificant number we should DO NOTHING. Then, you question a market approach as not being enough.

How about we just monitor the issue and do something when it's an actual problem and ignore sensational stories like This. One. Example.

edit: Accidental drowning is over 6x the rate of accidental gun discharge. Vehicle accidents are 75x the rate. Actually, looking at the list of accidental deaths... Guns are the lowest BY FAR.

You can't just focus on people dying. That's the ultimate price and not the entire picture. I also looked up the data for Unintentional Firearm Gunshot Nonfatal Injuries and Rates - 2013

16,864

There's no direct link to the results:

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html

Gallup Poll says that in 2013, 37% of people reported having a gun.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

So 37% of 316,128,839 population is 116,967,670 gun owners.

Works out to 5.33 people per 100,000 Americans, or 14.42 people per 100,000 gun owners.

That's not bad. I still think training isn't a bad thing, especially considering that if something does go wrong it can go VERY wrong, but mandated training at this point seems excessive.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Comparing cars and accidental drownings to accidental gun deaths is really stupid IMO. 70% of the planet is covered in water and cars are pretty much required to transport people to and from work/school/shopping etc. Vehicles are not designed to kill and they are heavily regulated. And water is freaking everywhere (except California)... these things are not going to change nor can we change our dependence on them. Guns are not really necessary for day to day life in this country. It's an apples to oranges comparison.

I think the accidental drownings and accidental gun deaths are more similar than you would think. When people compare accidental gun deaths to accidental drownings, I do believe they compare them to accidental drownings in pools. By your logic neither is necessary for day to day life. Unlike a car, a pool is a purely recreational item/activity. You do not need a pool to live you life. So yes, it is a valid comparison. If one wants to go away with guns because of accidental deaths on the premise that gun is not necessary for day to day life and taking away a gun could save a life, then they should also take away pools because those sure as heck are not necessary to live.

 

[Phoenix86]

My reply was only for possible minimization of accidental deaths. This thread topic does not discuss the illegal use of a gun. Rather, an accidental one.

You can't just focus on people dying.

If you don't agree with the discussion, just move the goal posts.

Maybe we should have an amendment that requires a license to vote. I bet far more people are injured or kill by stupid voters, and I bet you vote more than you shoot a gun.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I think the accidental drownings and accidental gun deaths are more similar than you would think. When people compare accidental gun deaths to accidental drownings, I do believe they compare them to accidental drownings in pools. By your logic neither is necessary for day to day life. Unlike a car, a pool is a purely recreational item/activity. You do not need a pool to live you life. So yes, it is a valid comparison. If one wants to go away with guns because of accidental deaths on the premise that gun is not necessary for day to day life and taking away a gun could save a life, then they should also take away pools because those sure as heck are not necessary to live.

People drown in lakes, oceans, streams/rivers and bathtubs too... not just pools. Fact is water is necessary for life and 71% of the planet is covered in it. You can't ban water...

 

[JulesMaximus]

But 505 is a real number, and it's significantly small enough to not change the constitution over. I didn't suggest doing nothing, just that it's more viable than anything FBB is bringing up. As I said, I'm all for reasonable legislation.

Show me reasonable legislation that actually addresses issues caused by guns, not "assault" weapon bans, or mag limits, or any of the other feel good legislation we currently get.

It is statistically insignificant unless it is your child.

 

[jlee]

People drown in lakes, oceans, streams/rivers and bathtubs too... not just pools. Fact is water is necessary for life and 71% of the planet is covered in it. You can't ban water...

But people also drown in pools, and nobody goes swimming in a bathtub because they don't have a pool at their house.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

If you don't agree with the discussion, just move the goal posts.

Maybe we should have an amendment that requires a license to vote. I bet far more people are injured or kill by stupid voters, and I bet you vote more than you shoot a gun.

Pretty sure such a thing wouldn't pass.

What would you say is reasonable legislation regarding gun laws?

 

[Phoenix86]

It is statistically insignificant unless it is your child.

I'm not heartless, of course that's the case. That doesn't justify legislation, even if it were my child, or me.

 

[Phoenix86]

Pretty sure such a thing wouldn't pass.

What would you say is reasonable legislation regarding gun laws?

You start with a justified reason for change from the status quo, not an assumption that the status quo is inadequate.

 

[sandorski]

There are plenty of gun owners who know they are a responsible gun owner, and because they are, things like this would not happen with their guns.

"Knowing" doesn't mean they are. It just takes one time, being in a rush, forgetting something, or numerous other mistakes, to lead to an act of irresponsibility.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

You start with a justified reason for change from the status quo, not an assumption that the status quo is inadequate.

So the status quo is A-OK in regards to accidental gun deaths?

What about criminal gun deaths?

What about if we had substantially less single-person gun murders but continued to have national massacres like we just did a couple days ago?

 

[shortylickens]

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news...ld-hamilton-boy-who-shot-himself-with-her-gun

It was a Ruger LC9.
And that surprises me.


The Ruger pocket pistols have very heavy triggers. A 3 year old shouldnt have been able to pull it.
The LC9 is also supposed to have a manual safety, but I guess it wouldnt be difficult to accidentally flip.