Gun Control

[teachercd]

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

When locked there is a zero chance 

But it is safe to say that having a gun in the house does increase the chance of a gun accident as opposed to not having a gun in the house at all, you would agree with that.

[Archy1221]

2 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Think of it like this...

 

I am scared of sharks, I know that if I never go swimming in the ocean that I will never get eaten by a shark.  Right?

 

If I never have a gun in my house, there will not be a gun accident in my house.  Right?

Both statements seem true.  But what are the odds of you being eaten during a shark attack and what are the odds of a gun owner having an accidental gun death in their home?   Both seem highly unlikely.  Especially when one puts into consideration a responsible gun owner who locks up their guns.  

[Archy1221]

2 minutes ago, teachercd said:

But it is safe to say that having a gun in the house does increase the chance of a gun accident as opposed to not having a gun in the house at all, you would agree with that.

Yes I would.   But what does chance increase to?  Especially taking into consideration my point of having guns locked away responsibly.  From 0.00 to 0.001?   I don’t know the answer but you understand the point 

[teachercd]

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

Both statements seem true.  But what are the odds of you being eaten during a shark attack and what are the odds of a gun owner having an accidental gun death in their home?   Both seem highly unlikely.  Especially when one puts into consideration a responsible gun owner who locks up their guns.  

Dude, I think 99% of gun owners believe they are responsible.  Just like people that drive cars are "responsible" and people that swim with sharks are "responsible" and so on.

 

I would guess that if we read every article on a child gun shooting story...that almost every article would have a line of "how responsible" the gun owner was.

 

Even when you are totally responsible with "it" there is still a chance.  

 

The question then becomes...do you want to risk that crazy insane small chance which could cost a life?

[teachercd]

2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Yes I would.   But what does chance increase to?  Especially taking into consideration my point of having guns locked away responsibly.  From 0.00 to 0.001?   I don’t know the answer but you understand the point 

If those are the stats and you knew that you could keep it a 0% and in turn taking away any chance that your kid would be shot and killed in your home by your gun...how could you not do everything you could to keep it at 0?

 

I get your point and it makes sense but kids will be kids and get curious...I did s#!t my Dad told me not to do.  I am sure you did as well.  

 

Had we had a gun safe growing up...I would have f#&%ed around with it and tried to get in and I am scared of my Dad even today.  But man, I would have still messed with that safe.

[Archy1221]

2 minutes ago, teachercd said:

The question then becomes...do you want to risk that crazy insane small chance which could cost a life?

If the question is about risk and chance of costing a life and what risk is acceptable….let me ask you this.   Do you text and drive once in awhile? Or talk on the phone and drive?  Or eat and drive?   Each one presents I believe a 30% or greater increase in the chance of a vehicular accident which could end up in death.   So if you answer yes to any of those, then we are just having a risk tolerance discussion and not a gun discussion I believe.  
 

And no I’m not trying to derail this thread away from guns (teach I know you don’t think this but I’m sure others will try and make that claim).  I think the level of risk acceptance in our country factors into these discussions.  

[teachercd]

Just now, Archy1221 said:

If the question is about risk and chance of costing a life and what risk is acceptable….let me ask you this.   Do you text and drive once in awhile? Or talk on the phone and drive?  Or eat and drive?   Each one presents I believe a 30% or greater increase in the chance of a vehicular accident which could end up in death.   So if you answer yes to any of those, then we are just having a risk tolerance discussion and not a gun discussion I believe.  
 

And no I’m not trying to derail this thread away from guns (teach I know you don’t think this but I’m sure others will try and make that claim).  I think the level of risk acceptance in our country factors into these discussions.  

I do all those things and that is proving my point.

 

We all do those things and we all think we are "responsible" people...

 

Stats show texting while driving is a 50% increase in causing an accident (From and article I am using in summer school class right now, ironic!)

 

I guess what I am saying is in the end, we are morons and do stupid things and make mistakes.  

 

I would not want that mistake to mean coming home and seeing a kid with his head blown off.

 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I think the risk tolerance discussion is really interesting. I have it all the time. It didn't go over well with the wife when I pointed out that she probably ran a greater risk bicycling every Saturday than attending Sturgis maskless during COVID. 

 

We all have risks we tolerate and fears we over-inflate and I don't know if statistical evidence changes anyone's mind. 

 

But guns are a little different in that everything risky serves another purpose: cars are how we get from Point A to Point B, We need food to live. Cell phones provide information and communication. Roller Coasters are a cheap thrill. My wife likes riding her bike. With all due respect to the tiny demographic of duck and pheasant hunters, the guns we're talking about are designed to kill people, and the only guns being considered for a ban are designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible. 

 

I think we will always have handguns, and I'm not going to tell someone that they shouldn't feel safer keeping one handy, but statistically there just aren't that many clean scenarios of a gun being used to thwart a criminal compared to a gun being used by a family member -- or the owner himself -- in a suicidal moment, or in a tragic accident, or even being stolen and used against the owner by the criminal. 

 

Responsible gun owners and the NRA of 40 years ago would have nothing to worry about from the very modest gun control legislation currently on the table. 

 

I'm also for yanking the drivers' license of any repeat texting and driving offender. 

[Toe]

[Lorewarn]

7 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Both statements seem true.  But what are the odds of you being eaten during a shark attack and what are the odds of a gun owner having an accidental gun death in their home?   Both seem highly unlikely.  Especially when one puts into consideration a responsible gun owner who locks up their guns.  

 

 

7 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

If the question is about risk and chance of costing a life and what risk is acceptable….let me ask you this.   Do you text and drive once in awhile? Or talk on the phone and drive?  Or eat and drive?   Each one presents I believe a 30% or greater increase in the chance of a vehicular accident which could end up in death.   So if you answer yes to any of those, then we are just having a risk tolerance discussion and not a gun discussion I believe.  

 

 

In regards to the risk tolerance discussion, which is really what gun control is about, I look at it like this.

 

The odds of a young child getting their hands on a responsibly locked gun are very low, but not zero. However, the odds of that gun being useful for protection are also incredibly low, especially if it's safely locked away. I don't know if the stats exist but I'd love to see a comparison of accidental homicides and suicides by gun owners in their homes compared to successful thwarting of invasion with guns.

 

And yeah I definitely occasionally text and drive. But when I have anyone else in my car the odds that I'll do that are drastically reduced, because I'm now responsible for taking care of that person. I feel similarly about owning a gun when you have things that make that situation more risky (ie children in the house).

[Scarlet]

 

 

Full speech here 

 

 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

17 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

And yeah I definitely occasionally text and drive. But when I have anyone else in my car the odds that I'll do that are drastically reduced, because I'm now responsible for taking care of that person. I feel similarly about owning a gun when you have things that make that situation more risky (ie children in the house).

 

Well you're also responsible for the people in the cars around you. The cars you're not seeing  because you're texting. Those cars have kids in them, too. Also: pedestrians. 

[suh_fan93]

The Republican party in a nut shell.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

So, let me get this straight.

 

Republicans don't like red flag laws because someone could have their guns taken away "before a crime has been committed".

 

But, in this situation, I'm assuming they are happy that a guy simply with a gun was arrested before he committed a crime.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

Correct.  SCOTUS should be safe.....but so should the rest of society...especially kids.