Bullets and Rifles and Guns! OH MY!!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 06, 2013 5:40 pm

Rather than looking at unique cases and freaking out, or looking at the worst places to try to figure out what they're doing wrong, maybe we should look to the best places (in the US) to see what they're doing right.

I would guess that the places where gun use is common, part of daily life, would have the lowest instances of gun death by accident or rage. Small towns and rural areas. I don't know because I haven't done the research. If my guess is accurate, then maybe the answer for the US is to teach kids gun use and gun safety rather than making them taboo, and do it early, before bad elements can make it a cool way to break the rules. Teach hunting in late elementary/early middle school.

Hunting does not make a child bloodthirsty. Hunting shows with graphic intensity that a gun has the power to kill, and it teaches it with safety and responsibility.

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Sun Jan 06, 2013 6:35 pm

Bryn Mawr;1415601 wrote: No, Accountable started this thread to discuss guns so that's what we're discussing - maybe you'd like to start one to cover the medical malpractice problem?

Lighten up, my comment regarding the "discussion" was meant at the national level. Wow.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:38 pm

While driving through New Mexico, I tuned in to a local radio station hoping to get an updated weather forecast. Instead there was a discussion about guns and violence involving guns. There were the usual arguments on both sides of the issue and then it got interesting. Someone asked about those who have thousands of rounds of ammunition in their garages and basements. It was the person's contention that storing dynamite or gunpowder having the same explosive potential as the ammunition was regulated and no municipality would allow storage of dynamite in a garage in a residential neighborhood. He asked why an exception was made for ammunition.

Later in the same program someone suggested something else that I had not considered. He suggested the simple requirement that guns be insured, similar to car insurance. It would be up to the insurance companies to set the rates, based on the potential for accidents involving the type of weapon. Thus, a 22 target rifle would require very little insurance while an assault rifle would require considerably more insurance. The insurance company would give discounts for gun safes, education, etc. and raise the rates for those individuals who had previously demonstrated careless behavior with their guns. It was an interesting suggestion.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:00 pm

halfway;1415637 wrote: Lighten up, my comment regarding the "discussion" was meant at the national level. Wow.

Shame ... if we care so much

And I'm meant to lighten up? Wow!

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:03 pm

Wandrin;1415703 wrote: While driving through New Mexico, I tuned in to a local radio station hoping to get an updated weather forecast. Instead there was a discussion about guns and violence involving guns. There were the usual arguments on both sides of the issue and then it got interesting. Someone asked about those who have thousands of rounds of ammunition in their garages and basements. It was the person's contention that storing dynamite or gunpowder having the same explosive potential as the ammunition was regulated and no municipality would allow storage of dynamite in a garage in a residential neighborhood. He asked why an exception was made for ammunition.

Later in the same program someone suggested something else that I had not considered. He suggested the simple requirement that guns be insured, similar to car insurance. It would be up to the insurance companies to set the rates, based on the potential for accidents involving the type of weapon. Thus, a 22 target rifle would require very little insurance while an assault rifle would require considerably more insurance. The insurance company would give discounts for gun safes, education, etc. and raise the rates for those individuals who had previously demonstrated careless behavior with their guns. It was an interesting suggestion.

Now that I like - a lot. Make it include a third party provision with compensation to any victims too and "market forces" would become very interesting.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:44 pm

I considered the insurance side but I didn't bother bringing it up because no amount of insurance makes a bit of difference when the insured is killed by her son and 26 more die from her guns too.

I say just repeal the second amendment and if that's not doable, remove the guns from those who won't sacrifice voluntarily. The third option, and I'm all for this one too, is permit the secession of a state or two and let the good and bad gun owners have their own country.

We'd need to put up a wall, unfortunately.

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:25 pm

Accountable;1415634 wrote: Rather than looking at unique cases and freaking out, or looking at the worst places to try to figure out what they're doing wrong, maybe we should look to the best places (in the US) to see what they're doing right.

I would guess that the places where gun use is common, part of daily life, would have the lowest instances of gun death by accident or rage. Small towns and rural areas. I don't know because I haven't done the research. If my guess is accurate, then maybe the answer for the US is to teach kids gun use and gun safety rather than making them taboo, and do it early, before bad elements can make it a cool way to break the rules. Teach hunting in late elementary/early middle school.

Hunting does not make a child bloodthirsty. Hunting shows with graphic intensity that a gun has the power to kill, and it teaches it with safety and responsibility.

You may have something here. It's the way *I* was raised, my siblings (including brother who grew up to be a police

officer) and the way my grandson is being raised.

I remember in high school, in the fall, when it was deer hunting season, there were always a few guys who

occasionally came to school with their gun racks in their pickups holding their rifles. No, I don't have photographic

proof, because it just wasn't anything anyone would have taken a picture of, it was such a common thing.

There ARE photos of my class president in the back of my school yearbook, holding his rifle.

Different time? Perhaps. True country? Yeah. I remember very few behavior problems, ever...

kids were raised to show respect for everybody. And NO sense of entitlement.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:28 pm

Ahso!;1415708 wrote: I considered the insurance side but I didn't bother bringing it up because no amount of insurance makes a bit of difference when the insured is killed by her son and 26 more die from her guns too.

I say just repeal the second amendment and if that's not doable, remove the guns from those who won't sacrifice voluntarily. The third option, and I'm all for this one too, is permit the secession of a state or two and let the good and bad gun owners have their own country.

We'd need to put up a wall, unfortunately.

What it would do it bring a degree of risk assessment into gun ownership. Whilst the licensing authorities may do background checks on the applicants, bringing financial consequences on the assessor into the equation certainly sharpens the focus.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:33 pm

Bryn Mawr;1415732 wrote: What it would do it bring a degree of risk assessment into gun ownership. Whilst the licensing authorities may do background checks on the applicants, bringing financial consequences on the assessor into the equation certainly sharpens the focus.

It might also make it very expensive to amass an arsenal in one's garage, since each gun would need to be insured. It would also provide a financial incentive to disclose/record the private sale of guns.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:00 pm

All meant as an end-run to where we all need to get to eventually. You both are probably right in that this is the approach that may very well be taken.

People such as Mrs Lanza would probably pay an even higher premium because her son was Aspy and living with her. What about the other Adam Lanzas out there that are Aspy, own guns and are not diagnosed?

The insurance thing gets really messy once mental illness is introduced to the equation.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:04 pm

Ahso!;1415744 wrote: All meant as an end-run to where we all need to get to eventually. You both are probably right in that this is the approach that may very well be taken.

People such as Mrs Lanza would probably pay an even higher premium because her son was Aspy and living with her. What about the other Adam Lanzas out there that are Aspy, own guns and are not diagnosed?

The insurance thing gets really messy once mental illness is introduced to the equation.

Aspy? What's next, retard?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:07 pm

AnneBoleyn;1415747 wrote: Aspy? What's next, retard?It's short for Asperger's, that's all.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:09 pm

Ahso!;1415748 wrote: It's short for Asperger's, that's all.
And retard is short for retarded. One thing you are not is lazy when it comes to typing your thoughts. No, you were being flip and/or lazy. Straighten up!

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:10 pm

Ahso!;1415744 wrote: All meant as an end-run to where we all need to get to eventually. You both are probably right in that this is the approach that may very well be taken.

People such as Mrs Lanza would probably pay an even higher premium because her son was Aspy and living with her. What about the other Adam Lanzas out there that are Aspy, own guns and are not diagnosed?

The insurance thing gets really messy once mental illness is introduced to the equation.

Where the mental illness is undiagnosed then no precautions can be taken against it but where it is known you can be sure that the insurance company would insist on every reasonable precaution being taken - as it should be.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:11 pm

AnneBoleyn;1415749 wrote: And retard is short for retarded. One thing you are not is lazy when it comes to typing your thoughts. No, you were being flip and/or lazy. Straighten up!

Wrong Planet - Autism Community

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:16 pm

Bryn Mawr;1415750 wrote: Where the mental illness is undiagnosed then no precautions can be taken against it but where it is known you can be sure that the insurance company would insist on every reasonable precaution being taken - as it should be.No question about it. The problem is that we are only learning about many of these different conditions within the species.

I talked about all this way back in one of these threads. Once the insurance companies get a wiff of how many conditions are out there, they'll back out of insuring gun pretty quickly.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:20 pm

Ahso!;1415751 wrote: Wrong Planet - Autism Community
Then you spelt it wrong. A columnist called himself 'aspie'. Interesting site, Ahso, thx.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:22 pm

AnneBoleyn;1415755 wrote: Then you spelt it wrong. A columnist called himself 'aspie'. Interesting site, Ahso, thx.Some spell it aspy and other's aspie. I've spelled it both ways.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:21 pm

I have gun insurance.

Covered under homeowners.

Check your policy. If not covered talk to your insurer. Can't imagine it would be all that much for peace of mind.

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:28 pm

Bryn Mawr;1415704 wrote: And I'm meant to lighten up? Wow!

Try putting it back in context. So much anger on these boards. What the hell?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:41 pm

tude dog;1415774 wrote: I have gun insurance.

Covered under homeowners.

Check your policy. If not covered talk to your insurer. Can't imagine it would be all that much for peace of mind.

That is insurance for the cost of the gun if it is lost or damaged - not insurance against the damage it might cause.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:42 pm

halfway;1415776 wrote: Try putting it back in context. So much anger on these boards. What the hell?

I did put it back into the context you gave it. Which context are you referring to?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 6:42 pm

Wandrin;1415703 wrote: Later in the same program someone suggested something else that I had not considered. He suggested the simple requirement that guns be insured, similar to car insurance. It would be up to the insurance companies to set the rates, based on the potential for accidents involving the type of weapon. Thus, a 22 target rifle would require very little insurance while an assault rifle would require considerably more insurance. The insurance company would give discounts for gun safes, education, etc. and raise the rates for those individuals who had previously demonstrated careless behavior with their guns. It was an interesting suggestion.
Driving is a privilege.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 6:47 pm

Ahso!;1415708 wrote: I say just repeal the second amendment and if that's not doable, remove the guns from those who won't sacrifice voluntarily.

And there it is, far too common and becoming more and more pervasive in the US. Pretend to respect the rule of law when it's convenient, but when it becomes inconvenient, phuck it all and do what you want.

It's an opinion shared by people of every political stripe, and it's despicable.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:04 pm

Bryn Mawr;1415781 wrote: That is insurance for the cost of the gun if it is lost or damaged - not insurance against the damage it might cause.

My guns are pretty tame. Never a problem.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:16 am

tude dog;1415809 wrote: My guns are pretty tame. Never a problem.

You are a single individual and not necessarily typical of all gun owners. In a discussion about gun ownership across the USA the fact that *your* guns are never a problem is irrelevant as it is quite evident that there are a large number of guns that *are* a problem - just as the fact that your guns are covered against loss or damage under your household insurance is irrelevant when discussing third party insurance against the damage caused by guns (or does your household insurance pay compensation if you go on the rampage and shoot twenty children - I doubt it).

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:28 am

Considering that there are an estimated over 200,000,000 guns in the USA, it is quite evident to me that there are a large number of guns that are *not* a problem - an overwhelming majority.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:51 am

Caught this today as it happens. Piers Morgan not my favourite journalist by any means but blooming heck.

Piers Morgan, radio host who wants him deported face off - CNN.com

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:44 am

gmc;1415837 wrote: Caught this today as it happens. Piers Morgan not my favourite journalist by any means but blooming heck.

Piers Morgan, radio host who wants him deported face off - CNN.comAlex Jones is a person in serious need of mental/emotional evaluation. He exhibits many of the signs attributed to Asperger's. His is no act for the camera of microphone.

I've read that this man has 50 guns.

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:03 am

Once again, pure ideology drives the posters to whatever pre-conceived beliefs they may have without honestly evaluating other options.

Very "open-minded".

Ha!

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:37 am

What is a per-conceived belief ?

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:39 am

gmc;1415837 wrote: Caught this today as it happens. Piers Morgan not my favourite journalist by any means but blooming heck.

Piers Morgan, radio host who wants him deported face off - CNN.com

I have to think this was a set up. This guy does not represent a typical gun owner by any stretch of the imagination, I thin Piers got exactly what he wanted from this guy.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:51 am

YZGI;1415862 wrote: I have to think this was a set up. This guy does not represent a typical gun owner by any stretch of the imagination, I thin Piers got exactly what he wanted from this guy.No, Jones doesn't speak for the majority of gun owners, but he does speak for some of the more dangerous ones. Jones is representative of a certain attitude and there's nothing wrong with allowing viewers to get a glance of what's out there. Responsible gun owners are interviewed by the media often and have their own television shows.

Here's what wikipedia has on the guy.

Alex Jones (radio host) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:01 am

Ahso!;1415867 wrote: No, Jones doesn't speak for the majority of gun owners, but he does speak for some of the more dangerous ones. Jones is representative of a certain attitude and there's nothing wrong with allowing viewers to get a glance of what's out there. Responsible gun owners are interviewed by the media often and have their own television shows.

Here's what wikipedia has on the guy.

Alex Jones (radio host) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He sounds like the Rush Limbaugh of gun rights. A boistrous idiot that doesn't care what he is saying as long as he can get someone to listen.

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:19 am

YZGI;1415870 wrote: He sounds like the Rush Limbaugh of gun rights. A boistrous idiot that doesn't care what he is saying as long as he can get someone to listen.

Does Limbaugh go against the Constitution? If so, he must be a boistrous idiot.

I've heard him labeled as racist, sexist, bigot, but no one ever has any proof or an in-context soundbite. Odd. Those comments in our PC world would surely get him knocked off the air as it did with Jimmy the Greek wouldn't it?

Wiki is not a legitimate source in most academic circles, many do not let their students use it because of it's error, bias, and randomness of accuracy. I am one of those.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:28 am

halfway;1415854 wrote: Once again, pure ideology drives the posters to whatever pre-conceived beliefs they may have without honestly evaluating other options.

Very "open-minded".

Ha!

I'm not an american. I know who piers morgan is haven't a clue who alex jones is. I assume, since he is on mainstream TV, he is relatively influential in america rather than just a random nutcase. I so do occasionally watch CNN as well as other foreign channels like euroews russia today and al jazeera so i think I can claim to look at a variety of diverse sources.

posted by yzgi

I have to think this was a set up. This guy does not represent a typical gun owner by any stretch of the imagination, I thin Piers got exactly what he wanted from this guy.

Well yes of course it is. Morgan was editor of one of the sleazier tabloid newspapers. Anyway, Jones, apparently, has started a petition to get morgan tossed out of the united states obviously morgan is after the publicity for his show.

posted by ahso

No, Jones doesn't speak for the majority of gun owners,

Bet your glad. Should a delusional paranoid personality be allowed to have a gun never mind 50?

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:39 am

gmc;1415882 wrote: I'm not an american. I know who piers morgan is haven't a clue who alex jones is. I assume, since he is on mainstream TV, he is relatively influential in america rather than just a random nutcase. I so do occasionally watch CNN as well as other foreign channels like euroews russia today and al jazeera so i think I can claim to look at a variety of diverse sources.

posted by yzgi

Well yes of course it is. Morgan was editor of one of the sleazier tabloid newspapers. Anyway, Jones, apparently, has started a petition to get morgan tossed out of the united states obviously morgan is after the publicity for his show.

posted by ahso

Bet your glad. Should a delusional paranoid personality be allowed to have a gun never mind 50?

"Who" determines "delusional paranoid personality"? We have many laws prohibiting gun possession for MANY reasons, offenses, and past issues. These include mental issues, felonies, etc. Each State has additional restrictions, waiting periods, etc.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:30 pm

Accountable;1415824 wrote: Considering that there are an estimated over 200,000,000 guns in the USA, it is quite evident to me that there are a large number of guns that are *not* a problem - an overwhelming majority.

Considering that there are an estimated over 280,000,000 people in the USA, it is quite evident to me that there are a large number of people that are *not* a problem - an overwhelming majority.

There are, however, a small minority with highly infectious diseases - would you fail to deal with them because they are such a minority?

There is, self evidently, a problem caused by a minority of gun owners in the US. That problem causes the deaths of a larger number of innocent people every year.

Either you can ignore the problem and accept the death toll or you can address the problem even though it only involves a minority of gun owners.

I know which I would do and which I would want to see done here. It is for the American people to decide what they want to do.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:32 pm

halfway;1415854 wrote: Once again, pure ideology drives the posters to whatever pre-conceived beliefs they may have without honestly evaluating other options.

Very "open-minded".

Ha!

Maybe you would care to suggest some of these other options - we've been discussing some but the more options on the table the better.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:22 pm

Bryn Mawr;1415897 wrote: Considering that there are an estimated over 280,000,000 people in the USA, it is quite evident to me that there are a large number of people that are *not* a problem - an overwhelming majority.

There are, however, a small minority with highly infectious diseases - would you fail to deal with them because they are such a minority?I certainly wouldn't kill everyone to prevent the disease. I understand the point, but you might want to pick another analogy.

Bryn Mawr;1415897 wrote: There is, self evidently, a problem caused by a minority of gun owners in the US. That problem causes the deaths of a larger number of innocent people every year.

Either you can ignore the problem and accept the death toll or you can address the problem even though it only involves a minority of gun owners.

I know which I would do and which I would want to see done here. It is for the American people to decide what they want to do.I raised two major suggestions as well. I agree, the more options on the table the better.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:01 pm

Accountable;1415910 wrote: I certainly wouldn't kill everyone to prevent the disease. I understand the point, but you might want to pick another analogy.

True, but I might want to lock them up until I'd taken away their disease. OK, maybe not the best analogy I've ever used.

Accountable;1415910 wrote: I raised two major suggestions as well. I agree, the more options on the table the better.

I know - you always get me to think, that's why you're so interesting to talk to :-6

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:26 pm

Bryn Mawr;1415814 wrote: You are a single individual and not necessarily typical of all gun owners. In a discussion about gun ownership across the USA the fact that *your* guns are never a problem is irrelevant as it is quite evident that there are a large number of guns that *are* a problem - just as the fact that your guns are covered against loss or damage under your household insurance is irrelevant when discussing third party insurance against the damage caused by guns (or does your household insurance pay compensation if you go on the rampage and shoot twenty children - I doubt it).

Oh, I disagree. I have no reason to believe that the average gun owner isn't at least as responsible as I am.

What happened at Sandy Hook is the exception. As a rule guns save lives.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:30 pm

YZGI;1415862 wrote: I have to think this was a set up. This guy does not represent a typical gun owner by any stretch of the imagination, I thin Piers got exactly what he wanted from this guy.

I have zero use for either bloke.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:35 pm

When Piers is deported can he please take Jeremy Kyle with him?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:41 pm

tude dog;1415932 wrote: Oh, I disagree. I have no reason to believe that the average gun owner isn't at least as responsible as I am.

What happened at Sandy Hook is the exception. As a rule guns save lives.Now that is a telling sentence.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:47 pm

Accountable;1415910 wrote: I certainly wouldn't kill everyone to prevent the disease. I understand the point, but you might want to pick another analogy. :)No, but you would kill the parasite or whatever that was causing the sickness. Or you might switch off a gene that was causing a problem if you could identify it. You'd also make sure that gene remained in the off position in future generations.

Bryn's analogy was just fine.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:48 pm

gmc;1415882 wrote: I'm not an american. I know who piers morgan is haven't a clue who alex jones is. I assume, since he is on mainstream TV, he is relatively influential in america rather than just a random nutcase. I so do occasionally watch CNN as well as other foreign channels like euroews russia today and al jazeera so i think I can claim to look at a variety of diverse sources.

posted by yzgi

Well yes of course it is. Morgan was editor of one of the sleazier tabloid newspapers. Anyway, Jones, apparently, has started a petition to get morgan tossed out of the united states obviously morgan is after the publicity for his show.

posted by ahso

Bet your glad. Should a delusional paranoid personality be allowed to have a gun never mind 50?

People that worry me more are those who pay any attention to Alex Jones. I have seen his Infowars and Prison Planet used on other sites presented as reliable news/commentary source.

All in all though, I have never read or heard anything that would lead me to believe him and his firearms are dangerous.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:50 pm

tude dog;1415932 wrote: Oh, I disagree. I have no reason to believe that the average gun owner isn't at least as responsible as I am.

What happened at Sandy Hook is the exception. As a rule guns save lives.

And I have no reason to believe that you're not an average gun owner either

But it is not the average gun owner that causes the problems - if only 0.01% of all American gun owners are exceptions then you have approximately ten thousand potential Sandy Hooks staring you in the face.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:52 pm

tude dog;1415939 wrote: People that worry me more are those who pay any attention to Alex Jones. I have seen his Infowars and Prison Planet used on other sites as a reliable news/commentary source.

All in all though, I have never read or heard anything that would lead me to believe him and his firearms are dangerous.

I'm fairly sure I've seen both used as reference here recently too.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:57 pm

tude dog;1415939 wrote: People that worry me more are those who pay any attention to Alex Jones. I have seen his Infowars and Prison Planet used on other sites as a reliable news/commentary source.

All in all though, I have never read or heard anything that would lead me to believe him and his firearms are dangerous.Then you haven't looked hard enough.