Mom owns 10 guns for self defense and kills her children with one of them.

[Bronzeage]

It was you who posted, "It's better to have guns than not have guns." That is a value judgment.

I'm just trying to understand how guns, or more guns, improves the situation. As it happened, when more guns arrived, the woman submitted to being shot by a policeman.

I think you better do some checking. I never said that and I never would. As a matter of fact, I would be perfectly happy if the ownership of hand guns by civilians was prohibited.

It was fast that posted the having guns are better comment

Quote Originally Posted by fast

It's better to have guns than not have guns. Bad things are apt to happen when guns are involved, but when things can really get ugly is when there are no guns involved.

My apologies. Somewhere I confused the quote boxes.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's better to have guns than not have guns. Bad things are apt to happen when guns are involved, but when things can really get ugly is when there are no guns involved.

^I found the culprit!

 

[ZiprHead]

My apologies. Somewhere I confused the quote boxes.

No prob. Better than when I confused my wife's underwear for mine.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I see nothing about mental illness there. It's about people who need help managing their finances.

Now, you might be able to argue that it's a case of mental deficiency--but there's no law against stupid people buying a gun. Thus this is an attempt to deny guns for no valid reason.

(Now, whether there should be an intelligence test to buy a gun is another matter. If you're going to go that route do so openly, though, don't go adding names to the ban list that have done nothing that warrants it.)

Actually, it's about NRA opposition to people who are unable to manage simple tasks like paying bills being excluded from buying guns.

VA's Fiduciary Program was established to protect Veterans and other beneficiaries who, due to injury, disease, or due to age, are unable to manage their financial affairs. VA will only determine an individual to be unable to manage his or her financial affairs after receipt of medical documentation or if a court of competent jurisdiction has already made the determination.

Guns for everyone, no matter how mentally impaired! Boo-yah!!

I'm not objecting to some sort of reasonable test of mental competence. (In fact, look back through my posts--I'm in favor of a gun license system akin to driver's licenses. If you can't pass a test on the laws you can't have a gun.)

What I am objecting to is this end-run around the law putting them on a ban list with no legal justification to do so. The government is bound by the laws, accepting allowing them to ignore the law because it looks like a good idea is not how I want the country run!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Truth be told, I do support (at least in personal thought) keeping our high-powered multi-round guns, but to think we're actually overall safer with them is quite questionable.

It isn't questionable it is a statistical fact: someone who owns a gun is 12 times more likely to injure themselves or family members than to successfully repel an attacker. Belief that guns increase safety comes from an over-estimation of the risk of home intrusion and actually being a victim of gun violence (which is actually declining but is more popular than ever in the media), and an under-estimation of the risk posed by hand held explosive devices. There is a significant statistical difference between the number of bow and arrow accidents and gun accidents.

aa

Except that's not what the data says. What it actually says is "kill", not "successfully repel". Most self-defense uses of a gun don't involve even firing it (the attacker realizes their target is armed, they haul ass out of there), let alone killing the attacker. Thus the number of dead bad guys is not a reasonable proxy for the number of people saved by being armed.

 

[RavenSky]

Which is why there are low speed limits in residential areas.

No matter what the speed limits are, watch some idiot flaunt them.

hey, if you are advocating rules, tests, regulations and insurance for guns like we have for cars - I'm all for it!

Some types of vehicles are banned. Some people are forbidden to drive. Everyone else has to pass competency tests on a regular basis, and maintain insurance. VIN numbers and license plates on the cars. Safety features on the cars.

Yes, I could definitely agree to these types of things for guns.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No matter what the speed limits are, watch some idiot flaunt them.

hey, if you are advocating rules, tests, regulations and insurance for guns like we have for cars - I'm all for it!

Some types of vehicles are banned. Some people are forbidden to drive. Everyone else has to pass competency tests on a regular basis, and maintain insurance. VIN numbers and license plates on the cars. Safety features on the cars.

Yes, I could definitely agree to these types of things for guns.

Competency tests at regular intervals?

It's been 26 years since I've had anything but a vision test.

Insurance?

The number of insurable incidents with guns is very low.

 

[RavenSky]

hey, if you are advocating rules, tests, regulations and insurance for guns like we have for cars - I'm all for it!

Some types of vehicles are banned. Some people are forbidden to drive. Everyone else has to pass competency tests on a regular basis, and maintain insurance. VIN numbers and license plates on the cars. Safety features on the cars.

Yes, I could definitely agree to these types of things for guns.

Competency tests at regular intervals?

It's been 26 years since I've had anything but a vision test.

Insurance?

The number of insurable incidents with guns is very low.

Vision tests are important for drivers and done on a regular basis. Further, there is an incident, additional auto training may be required (DUI school for example). There are also means to get autos out of the hands of people incapable of driving. It isn't easy (& it shouldn't be) but it is there.

We could easily have similar regulations for guns, and the fact that you snickered at how minimal they really are means gun owners have no room to complain about it.

Sent from my SM-G920T1 using Tapatalk

 

[fast]

Truth be told, I do support (at least in personal thought) keeping our high-powered multi-round guns, but to think we're actually overall safer with them is quite questionable.

It isn't questionable it is a statistical fact: someone who owns a gun is 12 times more likely to injure themselves or family members than to successfully repel an attacker. Belief that guns increase safety comes from an over-estimation of the risk of home intrusion and actually being a victim of gun violence (which is actually declining but is more popular than ever in the media), and an under-estimation of the risk posed by hand held explosive devices. There is a significant statistical difference between the number of bow and arrow accidents and gun accidents.

aa

This is just a question out of the blue. If someone angrily points a loaded deadly weapon at you, and if statistically, your chances of survival decreases by 1000% should you decide to defend yourself with a gun, then do you think you ought to have the legal right to defend yourself with a gun despite the statistics?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Competency tests at regular intervals?

It's been 26 years since I've had anything but a vision test.

Insurance?

The number of insurable incidents with guns is very low.

Vision tests are important for drivers and done on a regular basis. Further, there is an incident, additional auto training may be required (DUI school for example). There are also means to get autos out of the hands of people incapable of driving. It isn't easy (& it shouldn't be) but it is there.

I don't see the regular competency tests you're talking about. A vision test isn't a driving competency test.

We could easily have similar regulations for guns, and the fact that you snickered at how minimal they really are means gun owners have no room to complain about it.

Sent from my SM-G920T1 using Tapatalk

I have multiple times indicated that I am in favor of a competency test to possess a gun.

As for the insurance issue--it's really a backdoor attempt to get a list of guns--the holy grail of the gun-banners. That's why I oppose it.

 

[angelo]

No matter what the speed limits are, watch some idiot flaunt them.

I doubt we could ever eliminate auto accidents 100%, but do you believe that there are greater or fewer accidents due to driving restrictions?

aa

That's why all drivers must hold a license . If a nut case walks into a gun shop and wants to buy an assault rifle, the gun shop owner should not sell him one. In fact he/she should never be able to sell anything to anyone for a long time.

 

[Malintent]

What your link shows is that NRA supported legislation to make it easier for possibly mentally ill people to have guns.

I see nothing about mental illness there. It's about people who need help managing their finances.

Now, you might be able to argue that it's a case of mental deficiency--but there's no law against stupid people buying a gun. Thus this is an attempt to deny guns for no valid reason.

(Now, whether there should be an intelligence test to buy a gun is another matter. If you're going to go that route do so openly, though, don't go adding names to the ban list that have done nothing that warrants it.)

The reason organizations look to financial records to assess risk, is because the presumption is that most crime is committed for financial gain... if you are known to be in financial trouble, then you are thought to be a higher risk of committing a crime.

I think that is a little hysterical, in my opinion.

 

[Malintent]

Have you ever seen the remains of a body hit at 100 kml by a vehicle?

Are cars designed for the purpose of hitting people at 100 km/h?

Are guns designed with the purpose of unlawfully coercing someone to oblige you?

How would cars be designed differently, if intended to "mow down" pedestrians.... how would guns be designed differently if they were only designed to shoot good people and not bad people threatening violence, for example?

 

[Malintent]

No matter what the speed limits are, watch some idiot flaunt them.

hey, if you are advocating rules, tests, regulations and insurance for guns like we have for cars - I'm all for it!

Some types of vehicles are banned. Some people are forbidden to drive. Everyone else has to pass competency tests on a regular basis, and maintain insurance. VIN numbers and license plates on the cars. Safety features on the cars.

Yes, I could definitely agree to these types of things for guns.

Me too... and this is what I advocate. Although, to be fair, I also belvie the drivers license issuance procedures are stupidly easy. There needs to be more to getting one of those too.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Are cars designed for the purpose of hitting people at 100 km/h?

Are guns designed with the purpose of unlawfully coercing someone to oblige you?

I bet this is higher up on the list of usages of guns than mowing down pedestrians is for usages of cars.

Comparing guns to cars is a common red herring used by pro-gun people as if this somehow explains anything about guns. As others have pointed out, cars are highly regulated, so if you want to compare guns to cars, most gun control people would gladly let pro-gun people have their guns if they were regulated in a similar fashion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I see nothing about mental illness there. It's about people who need help managing their finances.

Now, you might be able to argue that it's a case of mental deficiency--but there's no law against stupid people buying a gun. Thus this is an attempt to deny guns for no valid reason.

(Now, whether there should be an intelligence test to buy a gun is another matter. If you're going to go that route do so openly, though, don't go adding names to the ban list that have done nothing that warrants it.)

The reason organizations look to financial records to assess risk, is because the presumption is that most crime is committed for financial gain... if you are known to be in financial trouble, then you are thought to be a higher risk of committing a crime.

I think that is a little hysterical, in my opinion.

The problem is that there is no legal basis for denying them guns. Putting them on the list is wrong. I wouldn't mind fixing the law, I very much mind government ignoring the law and doing what it wants anyway because the victims aren't going to be able to anything about it. That's what you usually see in dictatorships, it shouldn't be here.