A Conversation for Gun Safety
Two Bit Trigger Pumping Moron Started conversation Aug 7, 2002
This is a link to a news article about a misfire. Bruce Widener dropped the magazine out of a pistol and handed it to Representative Bob Barr (R-GA). There was an accidental discharge because they didn't check the chamber prior to handing the weapon over.
Representative Barr should have known better. He's on the board of the National Rifle Association. When you're dealing with guns, safety has to be paramount.
Never hand another person a gun unles you have visually and physically inspected the chamber of the weapon. Have the person you're handing it to do the same thing.
THIS IS CRUCIAL! If you screw up handling a weapon, people can die.
Doc Posted Oct 14, 2002
Anton Chekhov once wrote this as an example of play-writing ru-
les: "If a gun hangs on the wall in the first act, it should be fired by the end of a play." Same rule applies in real life- if the gun exists, it fired at least one bullet , and most of the bullets hit something.For me the crucial question brought by this entry is
What do you need the gun for?
hobbes Posted Oct 14, 2002
I believe the quote goes "you can have my gun when you prise it outa mah cold dead hands..." Well that suits me. I'd gladly prise a gun out of the hands of as many dead gun-owners as you can supply. Then we could melt them down (the guns that is) and make useful stuff from the metal.
Stephen Posted Oct 14, 2002
Im with you 100% on this. The whole raison d'etre of firearms is to do damage and mostly to people. The more guns there are around, in the final analysis, the more people will get killed or injured.
Thus if for no other reason, the number of guns in circulation should be kept at an absolute irreducible minimum. Unfortunately it wouldn't be possible to ban them completely, even in countries where they are already carefully controlled; there are too many "legitimate" uses for them (maintaining law and order and national security; destroying vermin; killing for food) but the aim aught to be to get as near to that ideal as possible.
Ya'know- that one guy! Posted Oct 14, 2002
Ah, but that brings up the issue of gun control, which is a completely different point than gun safety. There is a great deal of controversy and disagreement over whether gun control is wise or foolish.
In the end, the more laws, the less people there are that will have guns. If guns are completely illegal, except for military, (and possibly cops,) then there are two types of people who carry them- military, and outlaws. Now, what do outlaws do with guns?
Please, draw your own conclusions.
The Average Joe No One EVER Suspects Posted Oct 14, 2002
One of the, I guess, more notorious arguments that I've heard, and I'm supposing that this comes up everytime the issue of gun control comes up, is the case of the people who were so anti-gun, that they actually advertised the fact that their houses didn't have any weapons. Almost immediately, those houses were broken into. In my oppinion, gun control should be geared more to keep the weapons out of the hands of people who could diliberately misuse them, but still allow average law-abiding people access to them. Will this be perfect? NO. But, nothing ever is. I am a strong supporter of having some kind of firearm in the home for defense. There's always the question of, "Well, what if someone gets mad enough to use it on an innocent person?" I realize that that is a possiblity, but there are many more ways to kill someone other than just shooting them. And murder is still murder. Gun control should also be self control, as these rules outline. I've been arounf various weapons my whole life, and I learned at a very young age what guns are and what they can do. The very first time I got a toy gun from my mom for a birthday, my father took me out in the back yard and introduced me to a real gun and what it could do to a water melon. Or, a fleshy target. This was to show me how serious guns were and that they were in no way a toys. The gun my father showed me was a .22 cal revolver. I've since handled a .38, a .45, 9mm, 380, 8mm Mauser, .30-06 M-1 Garand, Lee-Enfield jungle, and a 12 gauge shotgun all, thank the gods, without mishap and I think if everyone took the kind of serious responsibility that my father instilled in me, there would be, at least, a note-worthy drop in firearm related accidents.
Stephen Posted Oct 15, 2002
The fact remains that if there were fewer guns in circultion, fewer people without a ligit need would have access to them. If a householder can have a gun for "self-protection" a crook can get one for more nefarious purposes. He's probably a householder too! The more crooks that have guns the more "law abiding" people will want them for protection. The result will be a proliferation of gun ownership and use, resulting, in all probability in a "spiral of violence"
The arguements just dont hold water!
Incidentally, in the UK householders are not, ordinarily, aloowed to keep guns at home and I doubt that our burgalry levels are any higher than anyone elses.
Danks Posted Oct 15, 2002
It is not true to say that UK householders are not allowed to keep guns in their houses. At one time I had a UK Firearms Certificate that allowed me to keep a .38 calibre revolver, a .22 pistol, .22 rifle, .308 rifle and .243 rifle at home. I did not own all of these, but in theory I could have done. Consider that since then the only thing that has changed is that private individuals are not allowed to have handguns (with certain exceptions), so even now, if I still had the certificate, I would be able to keep three firearms in the house.
However, when considering the UK position in the light of this gun safety article, we are very far from comparing like with like. In the UK self-protection has not been a valid reason for holding a firearm or shotgun certificate for a very long time. A few years ago a Norfolk farmer shot and killed a burglar who had broken into his house in the middle of the night. That farmer is in prison, whereas in certain parts of the US he would probably have been elected mayor.
Leaving aside gamekeepers, farmers and others who need to use guns as part of their work, civilians in the UK are permitted to have firearms for a very few purposes, essentially in connection with some kind of sport, after training, at an authorised club with an approved firing range and trained range officers, etc, etc.
When at home the guns themselves must be in a locked steel cabinet that meets Home Office standards, and it must be bolted to a wall. Ammunition must be in a separate cabinet of a similar standard, ideally in another room. The police come to inspect your property, its security in general and the gun storage facilities in particular, and interview you before granting the certificate. These controls are a world away from those that apply in the US.
The gun control debate is not something that I want to get involved in and nothing in this post should be taken to indicate that I do or that I hold any particular views on the matter. Please therefore do not flame me because of something you think I believe.
hobbes Posted Oct 15, 2002
The fact remains that, if you don't have a gun, you can't shoot someone. The fewer people who have guns, the fewer people will be shot. If it's a big deal when a firearm is used/seen, like it is in Britain it will be harder for criminals to get hold of them as there will be considerably less to choose from.
Guns will never be eradicated from the populous (unfortunately) but if you make it such a crime to have one that the people who do are staring down the barrel (excuse the pun) of a lengthy jail-term then a good many of those tempted won't then bother.
If a civilised society there is no reason to have a device that's only purpose is to kill other people.
Doc Posted Oct 15, 2002
I've never been in States so I don't feel competent to pass judgement on American society- God knows, if I lived there maybe I would've own a gun, maybe it is a neccessity. But if it is
so, than it's a hell of a tragic state of affairs.
Stephen Posted Oct 15, 2002
Yes, I stand corrected onthe guns at home issue, though the effects of the stringent controls you describe are that very few British householders keep guns at home and that the police are well aware of those that do, especially since, as i understand it, licences are not easy to come by.
DammedIfYouDo Posted Oct 15, 2002
What is going on in Washington sums up the whole sad and sorry situation regarding guns.
For a society 'Gun Safety' is an oxymoron. Their presence makes - on average - the citizens of a community less safe then they would be if they were absent. End of story. Statistics show this to be true.
Yes, this is true for auto's, knives and toilet cleaners, but these items are made for purposes other than killing.
Guns are made to kill. If you own a gun, you have to be prepared to kill somebody in order to make is useful. You are damaging your own psych by simply having it around.
I always remember seenign an advert in the US advocating more 'gun control' - A father shoots his own child, who is sneaking into the house to play a prank. That sums up the presence of guns - simply by being there, they poison an environment.
Two Bit Trigger Pumping Moron Posted Oct 15, 2002
I don't think the guy in Washington would be stopped by any form of gun control. He's clearly well motivated and marginally competent. He would be capable of acquiring a rifle in any country in the world. They're not that hard to find in any nation. I don't care where you live, the criminal element has fairly easy access to firearms. It's just a matter whether they're willing to risk it.
There's currently a well advertised program in several crime and violence ridden cities called Project Exile. Any person who commits a crime while armed (they don't have to use or display it) in the area gets five years of federal time. That means no parole in a federal penitentiary far from home. The mopes in the local area know about it and crime is drastically reduced. They know what carrying a gun during a crime will get you.
Gun Safety is not an oxymoron. Guns are dangerous, but it's easy to keep them safely.
"Same rule applies in real life- if the gun exists, it fired at least one bullet , and most of the bullets hit something."
Most of those bullets hit targets. They don't hit people. Don't make them more dangerous than they are.
Tonsil Revenge (PG) Posted Oct 15, 2002
Actually, the damage to anyone's psyche is already done if they are superstitious enough to believe that an object can be evil.
Ya'know- that one guy! Posted Oct 15, 2002
Statistics actually show that the tighter the gun control, the higher the crime rate. This is because in areas where guns are commonplace, criminals are more hesitant to try anything, not knowing who has a gun. This is known as the deterrance factor.
Britain has very tight controls on guns, and has a much higher crime rate as a result. The USA has less controls, but there crime rate is much lower. It is climbing though, as a result of an increasing number of controls and a degenerating culture. In Australia gun controls similar to Britain's have been passed within the last few years, and the crime rate has absolutely skyrocketed! Another example would be Israel, which a few years ago had the strictest gun controls on the planet, and the highest crime rate in history. Now every adult male carries a gun openly, (in part because of a complete removal of the gun controls, in part as a protection from crime, and in part because of open fighting with Pakistanis.) Now their crime rate is the lowest in the world, and even with open hostility between the Israelis and the Pakistanis, the guns are rarely used.
These are several examples of the correlation between crime rates and gun control. However, the greatest reason for allowance of gun control, and the most overlooked, has nothing to do with crime rate correlations or safety from criminals. The reason people should pack heat is because it protects them from internal tyranny. Hitler disarmed Germany, well before the Holocaust began. Stalin disarmed Russia, and the entire Soviet Union, and then he began the pogroms and deliberate starvation of millions of "citizens." Fidel Castro disarmed Cuba as soon as he came to power. Pol Pot disarmed Cambodia, shortly before the beginning of the killing fields. Every tyranny in modern history has required the outlawing and elimination of firearms.
What I said in my previous post still applies. With guns illegal, only the government and criminals have guns. In a tyranny, the government and the crime lords work hand in hand. The Mafia helped bring Fidel Castro to power, for example. They could openly "pack heat" in Cuba, and still could today, if they had any power left.
I don't advocate crime, and I don't advocate mentally deranged individuals being able to openly carry weapons, but I would rather have a mentally deranged individual with a gun, than have a mentally deranged tyrant with guns!
Stephen Posted Oct 16, 2002
I would need to examine your statistics to be convinced:
1. That tighter gun control means more crime. I don't see in any case how they could mean more armed crime.
2. That the UK has a higher crime rate than the US.
This sounds to me like an example of Lies, Damned lies and Statistics. You can "prove" anything (ab)using statistics.
The fact is that anyone can dream up superficially plausible arguements against gun controls (or most other things if they want to); they dont get round the basic facts already stated in this thread:
1. The whole raison d'etre of guns is to to damage, mainly to people.
2. The fewer guns there are around, the fewer people will get hurt or killed by them.
Those seem to me to be clinching arguements for the tightest possible gun control.
Someone talked about "objects being evil" and damage to the psyche. My reply would be that it is not the objects themselves that are evil, it is the actions they enable. Again that seems to me a perfectly reasonable arguement for controlling the objects.
Doc Posted Oct 16, 2002
Castro came to power with the help of Cuban people sick of Cuba being an American Casino&Whorehouse.Stalin and Hitler
would've done what they did even if every Russian and German
had an Uzi, simply because aforementioned gentlemen disar-
med the people's brains first.And if Bush ever decides to come
and get you or any other brave American freedom keeper,be sure
that his firepower will make yours obsolete.Than you would pro-
bably realise the dangers of arms race-bigger and better allways
wins untill something even bigger and better is developed, and
so on ,untill the winner is announced.But we don't have to wait
that long, the winner is already known- it's the arms industry.
Key: Complain about this post
- 1: Two Bit Trigger Pumping Moron (Aug 7, 2002)
- 2: Doc (Oct 14, 2002)
- 3: hobbes (Oct 14, 2002)
- 4: Stephen (Oct 14, 2002)
- 5: Ya'know- that one guy! (Oct 14, 2002)
- 6: The Average Joe No One EVER Suspects (Oct 14, 2002)
- 7: Stephen (Oct 15, 2002)
- 8: Danks (Oct 15, 2002)
- 9: hobbes (Oct 15, 2002)
- 10: Doc (Oct 15, 2002)
- 11: Stephen (Oct 15, 2002)
- 12: Stephen (Oct 15, 2002)
- 13: Stephen (Oct 15, 2002)
- 14: DammedIfYouDo (Oct 15, 2002)
- 15: Two Bit Trigger Pumping Moron (Oct 15, 2002)
- 16: Tonsil Revenge (PG) (Oct 15, 2002)
- 17: Ya'know- that one guy! (Oct 15, 2002)
- 18: Tonsil Revenge (PG) (Oct 15, 2002)
- 19: Stephen (Oct 16, 2002)
- 20: Doc (Oct 16, 2002)