Senate Gun Control

Of course, the problem is that no one actually trains with their firearm, for whatever their reason is to have one. For as huge a responsibility that gun ownership is, if one chooses to keep one for protection, then that's the role it should have. If a thief is stealing your television, then great, you can always get another one. The point of having a gun is to use it to protect your own life. So, if you're in your bedroom with your gun, and the bad guy leaves you alone, everyone wins. That's your safe zone, you control it and can stay there and call the police. Hopefully, that gun owner has practiced so that they can manipulate the safety if the gun has one. Or practiced holding a flashlight and pistol at the same time. Because a light is just as important. Or thought about the possible consequences beforehand. Or researched the fact that you can't just blindly shoot through a door because there is a scary sound.

The problem comes into play when the half asleep homeowner/gun owner stumbles around in a daze in the dark to go "confront" the thief, and ends up shooting their daughter who was trying to sneak back in after coming home late. Just keep your gun in a safe with a flashlight, and there is no immediate need to grab it and go charging off into the night. In fact, the extra action of putting in a code to open a safe may give the second or two for some concentration and focus.

 

To be fair, a shadow is black.

 

lol.... are the Darwin awards still a thing?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/18/woman-kills-self-adjusting-bra-holster/23640143/

 

She's not eligible. From the article:

As she has two sons, she is still in the gene pool, and therefore not eligible for a Darwin Award.

 

The existence of offspring, though potentially deleterious to the gene pool, does not disqualify a nominee. Children inherit only half of each parent's genetic material and thus have their own chance to survive or snuff themselves. If, for instance, the offspring has inherited the "Play With Combustibles" gene, but also has inherited the "Use Caution When..." gene, then she is a potential innovator and asset to the human race. Therefore, each nominee is judged based on whether or not she has removed her own genes, without consideration to the number of offspring or, in the case of an elderly winner, the likelihood of producing more offspring.
http://www.darwinawards.com/rules/rules1.html

The lesson we can take from this is, do not wear a loaded weapon pointed at your face/head.

 

The Darwin Awards: still promoting social Darwinism, because people deserve death or sterilization for stupid mistakes.

 

Double post

 

Ha! What a boob!

 

This could go in the feminism thread too, but I'll post it here: A Bid For Guns on [College] Campuses to Deter Rape. Plus an enlightening followup interview with the Nevada lawmaker cited in the original article.

 

Funny that no country considers guns a human rights - apparently they have no liberty.

 

Yeah, I suppose one could make that argument. What the Founders started was, and still is for the most part pretty unique. I suppose the illegal immigration problem we're having is probably because people are clamouring for less freedom, right? And gun ownership as a human right? Sure, to protect ones' self, family, property and assets - sounds good to me.

 

Immigration could also be based on the fact that you're a wealthy country and that they are coming from a poor one.

I agree that wanting more freedom may also be a reason for wanting to move to the US but I suspect that some of those illegals are also coming from a country that also has a high proportion of guns within it's border (I'm look at you Mexico)




I have a feeling the wealthy, "American Dream" land of opportunity type stuff has more of a sway over the chances to own their very own gun

 

So, everyone has less rights than you do?

 

That's not true. There's one legal gun store in Mexico-- it's in the capital and run by the federal government. Mexico has 15 guns per capita (same as Australia and below countries such as Germany) compared to the U.S.'s 90. Most of Mexico's gun violence can be attributed to cartels, law enforcement, and the military. Parts of the country have been effectively in a low-level civil war since 2006 which has inflated the murder rate. And a large proportion of the guns in cartel hands were legally purchased in the United States.

 

I think that was truer at the beginning of the country, comparable to like societies at the time. Obviously liberties have been added, and some more limited (hello, Patriot Act). But I think we're still pretty free, or as you put it we have a pretty good system for personal rights. Sometimes I put my tinfoil hat firmly on my head and think the debate about gun control is a distraction when should be talking about the massive elimination of protected private information, which is where the real control and power lies. Information is the real weapon that needs regulation and protection. Gun violence is verifiably down, there's far more guns than people here, and even though we have a gun culture, we don't have a gun problem. If guns are the problem, yet we've had guns since before the creation of the country, wouldn't there be a long chain of school shootings with increasing frequency as the years and guns increased? If guns are truly to blame, the outcomes would support the violence associated with it. However, it does not.

 

I'm sure that what the parents of the victims of the Newtown massacre really care about is NSA spying.

 

Probably worthy of another thread, but what do you think is preventing the cartel casualty rate from being duplicated here in the U.S.? The cartels operate here, all over, but the violence is a fraction of what it is in Mexico.

 

To your point I'm sure the parents of the children of the Newtown shooting were big proponents of gun control on December 13th, 2012 also.

 

There are multiple reasons. Cartels have control over communities in Mexico (either through PR or violence or both); they have control over law enforcement and government officials. That would be a lot more difficult in the U.S. Another reason is that by escalating violence on the U.S. side of the border they risk incurring the wrath of a much more powerful state than Mexico. But a big reason is that there's no need. The Mexican government escalated the situation considerably by deploying the military against the cartels; the U.S. hasn't done that. Also, the cartels are the producers of some drugs and the middlemen for others (cocaine). The U.S. is the market. It's where the demand is. Why risk losing that?

 

Are you implying that illegal immigrants are coming to the US so they can buy guns?

 

To think that people come to America because they want guns is downright ridiculous. And there is a reason no other nation considers it a right - because they aren't crazy... and we aren't talking about muskets anymore...

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I think freedom/liberty/opportunity is why people risk their lives to get here, not necessarily guns. But I think gun ownership goes hand in hand with personal freedoms.

 

So countries with less guns are less free then?

 

But countries who have gun control are safer...