Toddler shoots mom in a Wal-Mart

[Orogun01]

 

Need a license to drive a car? Okay. Need a license for a gun? My human rights! Waaaah!

 

I might be having a hangover, but are you suggesting that we should add an amendment in the constitution for the right to drive a car?

 

Driving Cars is not a right, also the sell of cars needs to be regulated. They are selling sports cars that go from 0 to 60 in fractions of a second, but when Paul Walker died in one you don't see the media on a frenzy asking that they ban cars or that they regulate them. At best you get a comment saying that they shouldn't sell cars like these, and you definitively don't get a Congressional Hearing trying to ban them.

 

 

[Valsuelm]

So many comments made in ignorance and a few revolting ones. Seriously, you 'Darwin'/'she deserved it' people are disgusting. Despicable.

 

What happened was an accident. Tragic.

 

Tragic things happen where people get killed accidentally in various ways every day somewhere in a nation of 300+ million people. Some of things are extremely unusual. Many of them because someone made a simple mistake, be it mental or physical in origin. If you think you're immune to making such mistakes you're foolish at best. Accidental deaths are the 5th leading cause of death across all ages nearly every year, and are the leading cause of death amongst the younger age groups. It's near certain that at least a couple of the people reading this will eventually check out via an accident of some kind, and all of us have the potential to.

 

And honestly, to anyone who thinks this is any kind of gun issue or that this is even a remotely common way to accidentally die, the fact is that deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm accounted for approximately 1 in 200 of all accidental deaths nationwide in 2010 as recorded by the CDC, and these stats really don't change much from year to year. You are more than 6 times more likely to accidentally drown, almost 5 times as likely to accidentally die as the result of a fire, almost 55 times more likely to die of accidental poisoning, 58 times more likely to die in a car accident, 42 times more likely to die as the result of a fall, etc.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_06.pdf

 

This story isn't news. It's not relevant to any rational argument for or against guns. This story is just sad.

 

[teknoman2]

 

when it comes to banning or not firearms

when i throw a rock off a cliff and it lands on somebody's head, is it the rock that is at fault?

people dont kill people because they have guns. they kill people because they are ignorant-irresponsible-uneducated-savages with unrestricted access to guns. without access to guns they would still kill using other weapons. if they became responsible, educated and civilized, they would refrain from violent behaviour even if they had unrestricted access to nukes

 

I'm pretty sure that two year old wasn't rummaging around looking for a suitable weapon to kill his mom, and he probably wasn't going to get the job done with a pocket knife.  Education isn't an issue either, the mother was well educated and had experience and training.  

 

Also no one here has seriously discussed banning firearms.  At most they've talked about licensing. 

 

this is general social problem that goes far beyond this particular incident.

if society (including but not limited to: government, school, police, artists, parents) bothered to keep people from becoming ignorant-irresponsible-uneducated-savages instead of actually encourage that behaviour (ie hip-hop), that mother would have no need to carry a loaded gun around

[Hurlshort]

I would really like to see a statistical comparison between your odds of being in a situation where you need a gun to protect yourself versus the odds of having an accidental discharge.  I imagine they are both very low.

[Woldan]

I bet they are about as low as the odds of ever needing a fire extinguisher. But boy, I'm glad I have one in my house. 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I bet they are about as low as the odds of ever needing a fire extinguisher. But boy, I'm glad I have one in my house. 

 

Generally very few people ever die to fire extinguishers.

Edited January 1, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Woldan]

That was not the point.

 

The point is, some things are good to have even though you might never need them. But when you need them you NEED them.

 

Many people died because of ''ah thats never gonna happen to ME''.

Edited January 1, 2015 by Woldan

[aluminiumtrioxid]

That was not the point.

 

The point is, some things are good to have even though you might never need them. But when you need them you NEED them.

 

And my point is that guns are unlike fire extinguishers, therefore you should make sure to limit their availability in a way that maximizes their utility to those who need them, while minimizing the harm that comes from mishandling them. Which can be easily accomplished by requiring a psych evaluation and accomplishment of safety courses before letting anyone buy them.

[Woldan]

And how are you going to decide who needs them and who doesn't?

Hundred of thousands of more people die from cars than from gun accidents. Lets start with cars. No sir, you have to take the subway, cars are dangerous and we are trying to limit their availability in a way that maximizes their utility. Mister XY has a more important job than you and therefore its more important for him to get to work in time. Thank you. Next!

 

 

Which can be easily accomplished by requiring a psych evaluation and accomplishment of safety courses before letting anyone buy them.

Wrong. People can and do change dramatically and in unpredictable ways. Edited January 1, 2015 by Woldan

[Hurlshort]

That was not the point.

 

The point is, some things are good to have even though you might never need them. But when you need them you NEED them.

 

Many people died because of ''ah thats never gonna happen to ME''.

 

Many?

 

What if we look at the numbers, and the odds are just as good that you will die of an accidental discharge as they are that you will use the gun to protect your home from a violent intruder?  

 

I've already said I have no problem with gun ownership.  When I lived in a rural environment, I found them to be helpful in scaring off coyotes.  But lets not kid ourselves about how useful they are.  You can admit that you like to have guns because you enjoy them and think they are cool, there is nothing wrong with that.  But save your time with the justifications.

[Woldan]

What if we look at the numbers, and the odds are just as good that you will die of an accidental discharge as they are that you will use the gun to protect your home from a violent intruder?

If you picture gun owners as single digit IQ individuals your assumption sounds correct. Guns are very very simple tools, you have to be a complete and utter idiot to hurt yourself with one. Of course you read about accidental discharges in the news, you'll rarely ever read about crimes that have been prevented with guns.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

And how are you going to decide who needs them and who doesn't?

 

 

If I was a government official tasked with dealing with the issue of the regulation, I wouldn't give a **** about who needs them and who doesn't - I'm not interested in optimizing gun utility (in lives saved and crimes prevented), I'm interested in optimizing cost-efficiency (the benefits of regulation - hospital bills prevented, f'rex - need to outweigh the costs of implementing the regulation). "Need" doesn't factor in.

 

 

 

Which can be easily accomplished by requiring a psych evaluation and accomplishment of safety courses before letting anyone buy them.

 

Wrong. People can and do change dramatically and in unpredictable ways.

 

 

You're right, regular checkups would obviously be optimal, but the number of deaths/injuries prevented that way would not justify the cost. This way you can at least select out the obvious nutjobs.

[teknoman2]

in my country, everyone can (after a psych evaluation and accomplishment of safety courses) get a permit to own and carry around a gun. at the same time we have one of the most lazy and unreliable police in the world. still, the amount of violent (and especially gun related) crimes and the number of people who own a gun is very low. about 80% of the population does not have and has no intention of ever getting a gun, 19% are hunters and 1% are rich people who have a valid reason to think they may get targeted

[Walsingham]

The only situation I'd want a gun to protect myself is if someone was actively trying to kill me. And if they were the last bloody place they'd do it is in my house where all the evidence is neatly contained. They'd do it on the street.

[Woldan]

I remember robberies with murder not far away from where I live, in the middle of the bright day in their own houses. The owners were caught off guard, the robbers panicked and killed the man with a steel pipe. In another case the robbers tied and beat a woman to death with a poking stick. There was another where I do not remember the details. None of them were particular wealthy and the police never got the attackers.  None of them even had the time to call the police.

 

I can't say that a gun could have saved their lives without knowing more details, but it seems the police couldn't prevent those crimes, they arrived days later. In my case the police takes about 20-25 minutes to arrive. To tell the truth, I feel quite a bit safer with a gun and having literally thousands of hours of experience shooting them.  

Edited January 2, 2015 by Woldan

[Malcador]

And my point is that guns are unlike fire extinguishers, therefore you should make sure to limit their availability in a way that maximizes their utility to those who need them, while minimizing the harm that comes from mishandling them. Which can be easily accomplished by requiring a psych evaluation and accomplishment of safety courses before letting anyone buy them.

If I was a government official tasked with dealing with the issue of the regulation, I wouldn't give a **** about who needs them and who doesn't - I'm not interested in optimizing gun utility (in lives saved and crimes prevented), I'm interested in optimizing cost-efficiency (the benefits of regulation - hospital bills prevented, f'rex - need to outweigh the costs of implementing the regulation). "Need" doesn't factor in.

 

Hmm.

 

But interesting to watch the usual crowd butt heads over this.

[Gorgon]

I know there are certain arguments that certain people here are psychologically programmed not to accept, but it is not the natural state of modern man to be carrying around concealed firearms. IF, and that's a big if, it is necessary it is because something has gone horribly wrong in society. 

 

I suspect it's more a matter of identity, of projecting a certain aura of rugged self reliance, and of course the sense of security it gives which is perhaps more important than the practical application. 

[Malcador]

Shame they don't have chainswords yet.  That would be an awesome personal defense weapon, at least against mugging.

[Woldan]

 but it is not the natural state of modern man to be carrying around concealed firearms. IF, and that's a big if, it is necessary it is because something has gone horribly wrong in society. 

 

Actually, carrying a concealed weapon has become more and more of a problem to many people only during the last 70 years or so (with exceptions), for thousand of years it was perfectly normal for everyone to carry a concealed state of the art weapon. Its sadly a big mistake to think that humans, out of a sudden have become so civilized that carrying a tool to defend yourself is not necessary anymore, or even evil. 

 

Carrying a tool for defense is not a sign that there has something gone horribly wrong in society, its a sign that humans are still humans and they haven't suddenly advanced into higher beings. It would be really cool to not need to protect yourself from stupid and malevolent people, but we're not living in that time yet. Its getting better, but its a slow process. 

Edited January 2, 2015 by Woldan

[Malcador]

It can be, though, but it depends.  Being armed to go for a walk at night is sensible if you are in Rio or San Fernando (definitely the case in the latter), but if the average citizen risks death by going out (enough so that being armed is not paranoid but pragmatic) then there is something wrong with that society.   If you're armed as the nearest cops are 45 minutes hard driving away, well, that isn't as 'damning' to society as a whole.

[500MetricTonnes]

I know there are certain arguments that certain people here are psychologically programmed not to accept, but it is not the natural state of modern man to be carrying around concealed firearms. IF, and that's a big if, it is necessary it is because something has gone horribly wrong in society. 

 

I suspect it's more a matter of identity, of projecting a certain aura of rugged self reliance, and of course the sense of security it gives which is perhaps more important than the practical application. 

I've only fired a gun a few times in my life, but it's impossible not to feel the sense of power it gives you. You hold the gun in your hand and think, "Yeah, now I'm badass, now I'm powerful. No one better mess me; I'll shoot em' dead!"

 

The peculiarities of a nation, both good and bad, must ultimately arise from the character of its people, and I believe that the American ideal of "rugged individualism" is largely responsible for that country's bizarre fixation on firearms. When you have a highly-competitive, ultra-individualistic society where the "self-made man" is expected to make it on his own, without help from anyone, it's easy to see why people would feel the need to arm themselves.

[Volourn]

" but it is not the natural state of modern man"

 

What illogic.

[Drowsy Emperor]

The problem with having a gun is that few people are aware what a serious commitment owning one is if you ever intend to use it. You have to be disciplined, you have to make time to go to the range etc, you have to take precautions so that kids or even grown people don't find it and handle it lest they do something stupid. And you can only get careless once before something terrible happens.

 

I think many people get them for the wrong reasons. 

[HoonDing]

Luckily I know kung fu

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Ll9h7EPTA

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

And my point is that guns are unlike fire extinguishers, therefore you should make sure to limit their availability in a way that maximizes their utility to those who need them, while minimizing the harm that comes from mishandling them. Which can be easily accomplished by requiring a psych evaluation and accomplishment of safety courses before letting anyone buy them.

If I was a government official tasked with dealing with the issue of the regulation, I wouldn't give a **** about who needs them and who doesn't - I'm not interested in optimizing gun utility (in lives saved and crimes prevented), I'm interested in optimizing cost-efficiency (the benefits of regulation - hospital bills prevented, f'rex - need to outweigh the costs of implementing the regulation). "Need" doesn't factor in.

 

Hmm.

 

 

Hmm?

 

Maximizing gun utility and maximizing cost-efficiency related to maximizing gun utility are not the same thing.

Edited January 2, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid