Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Awesome information. I see too many people jumping at this instance of gross neglect as a reason to take away everyone's right to own firearms.
Here's the gross neglect that most of us people that know about guns understand/have all probably thought of:
1) the gun could/should have had a safety engaged
Most of mine do not have active safeties. Finger off the bang-switch, out of reach of kids!
2) since it was a semi-auto it didn't need to have a round chambered (cocked and ready to go doesn't even make sense in my opinion unless there was imminent threat somewhere).
When you pull your weapon in self defense...you are REACTING. You are already behind the curve. You don't go around shooting random people and claiming self-defense. That's nutty. Noone here suggested that, nor did you, but what you ARE suggesting is putting yourself further behind the reaction curve than necessary. Ideally we could know the actions of a criminal before hand. but we don't. So we need the swiftest possible response once they reveal themselves. Also, it's much easier to get a weapon into play 1 handed when it's already ready to be used. Always carry mine with a round in the chamber (striker fired, so no external hammer).
3) the maximum strength of a typical 2 year old's finger is about 1 pound of pull on a trigger (I read this today and believe it - I have 3 little kids - my 3 year old couldn't lift much less pull the trigger on anything I have). The gun ideally should have had a stronger pull weight than 1 pound! In fact I've never owned a gun which had so little. My 9 year old has a hard time pulling a trigger on anything I own (and rightfully so). I wouldn't feel safe with anything such a light trigger pull (aka hair trigger)
I dunno. Like I said, I didn't pay as much attention as I should have in that class, and I doubt they discussed trigger pull abilities of 2 year olds.
4) I like holsters with strong snaps or strong velcro securing the firearm in place. No two year old could manage to pop or un-velcro what I own. If I fell my gun wouldn't go flying. I like things that way. I typically use leather or kydex passive retention holsters. I have never had anything go flying shooting from many awkward positions or running, going prone, etc. while training with my rifle.
5) You never leave a firearm ready to go in front of a child. AGREED! The lady should have been wearing her CC purse on her shoulder at all times or had it with her in the changing room (if she was trying on clothes for example). It was a new purse she received for Xmas, she wasn't accustomed to it obviously. That stated, it was ridiculous to leave it with a gun inside within reach of a toddler. I know better, I suspect she did as well but made a fateful judgement call about that. agreed. Off-body carry is just a bad idea though. How is she going to draw the pistol from the purse once someone snatches it? Also, now you have a for-sure armed purse snatcher!
6) My children from the time they could speak have been taught firearm safety for children 101... you see a gun you run and go tell mom or dad... you never touch it. 2 years old is young for this type of instruction, but you need to be smart and do this early on. If you are in law enforcement, your children are taught early on that the gun you bring home and leave loaded and ready to go on or inside the end table/counter, etc is to be respected. You don't hear about the children of cops shooting each other or their parents too often for a reason. They are taught early on what to do and not do around firearms.
This is what my parents did. I never once "played with dad's gun" as a kid. I knew where and what it was, and it wasn't my business.
If in a dangerous situation I will unsnap/un-velcro, un-safety, and chamber the first round of any semi auto (for revolvers I obviously wouldn't worry about a safety or chambering the first round). How does this work in a store when you see someone who looks out of place and puts you on edge? I don't do anything wtih my CCW, I just stay alert and hope it doesn't "go there", but if it does, I am as ready as I ever could be, without doing a thing to tip anyone off about it. Also, sometimes you need the pistol out RIGHT THEN! You would be SOL Otherwise, things are safely locked up and hidden away as they should be. The lady in the article doesn't represent the gun culture nor does she represent a typical accident scenario involving children. It's unique, and bizarre, and unfortunate. Let it serve only as a reminder to those that have CC permits to be vigilant.
Anyway, that was my original point, was I wish the US did what the Swiss do. Make everyone serve in the military. At the moment the US employes less than .5% of its population as military active or reserve.
I think the problem is I misunderstood your original post.
Interesting concept about requiring everyone to serve in the military. It's pretty much how things used to be pre-Vietnam, when America didn't have many of the problems it has today. And grabbing at that culture thing again, I can't help but wonder what that would do to change the culture in America, in terms of uniting citizens and unifying the country, bridging racial and economic gaps, things like that. I'd asked how do you change the people. Maybe that's one answer.
"The firearms in Switzerland have ammunition allotments that are inventoried, and are kept in safes, and can only be shot in certain locations. The claim that "everyone in Switzerland has a firearm" could be similarly related to pretending that everyone in America earns an income that includes their tax dollars...well...technically, and banks do use that to figure loans (gross income), but we all know it's not that way. Also, yes, homogenous populations or immigrant populations ("Everyone's new here" are usually a LOT better off than 2+ generation split populations."
Dont confuse military ammo to civvie ammo rules in Switzerland. Lot of people get confused there.
I think the problem is I misunderstood your original post.
Interesting concept about requiring everyone to serve in the military. It's pretty much how things used to be pre-Vietnam, when America didn't have many of the problems it has today. And grabbing at that culture thing again, I can't help but wonder what that would do to change the culture in America, in terms of uniting citizens and unifying the country, bridging racial and economic gaps, things like that. I'd asked how do you change the people. Maybe that's one answer.
Would cost a fricking fortune though.
There would also be a percentage of conscientious objectors, who would ask for alternative service. So that would have to be set up, and an approval mechanism set in place.
I think the problem is I misunderstood your original post.
Interesting concept about requiring everyone to serve in the military. It's pretty much how things used to be pre-Vietnam, when America didn't have many of the problems it has today. And grabbing at that culture thing again, I can't help but wonder what that would do to change the culture in America, in terms of uniting citizens and unifying the country, bridging racial and economic gaps, things like that. I'd asked how do you change the people. Maybe that's one answer.
Would cost a fricking fortune though.
I tell you how that would work - people like me would say no fricken way! The US Govt. although with some well-intentioned people working within it appears to be funded by corporations and influenced by just a few powerful people who's ideals I don't agree with. The last 5 or 6 wars (I've lost count) have been fought for reasons that weren't very much about righting wrongs, they were about money and power. I wouldn't want my children nor grandchildren subject to mandatory service in such situations under a crooked government.
In Vietnam we saw the truth in the US for the first time... the wealthy and intelligent and powerful hid their children from the draft. Many of those children have grown up to be today's political and government agency leaders. Until this situation is changed back to how it should be - wars only being fought to right wrongs that cannot be fixed peaceably, I will continue to discourage my children serving in the military. Being forced to serve in today's world run/influenced by a corrupt power elite is not a good idea IMO. Switzerland and the other nations of the world who do mandatory military service for citizens don't haphazardly try to police the world the way the US does. Thats a huge difference.
The only issue I see is that people are drinking the kool-aid regarding how giving up the right to bear arms will somehow make everyone safer. It's just like how we were told that Obamacare was mysteriously going to solve all our healthcare woes. Now I am forced to spend a significant percentage of my income for a very lame health insurance policy and thus am just being taxed more - 4% more actually for what amounts to no additional service. People need to stop drinking the propaganda kool-aid or else they will find themselves even more screwed.
There would also be a percentage of conscientious objectors, who would ask for alternative service. So that would have to be set up, and an approval mechanism set in place.
I think the problem is I misunderstood your original post.
Interesting concept about requiring everyone to serve in the military. It's pretty much how things used to be pre-Vietnam, when America didn't have many of the problems it has today. And grabbing at that culture thing again, I can't help but wonder what that would do to change the culture in America, in terms of uniting citizens and unifying the country, bridging racial and economic gaps, things like that. I'd asked how do you change the people. Maybe that's one answer.
Would cost a fricking fortune though.
I kinda figured that is where we were at, lol, merry go round and round and round...
Hey speaking of merry go rounds, your in CALI like me, notice how they took all those out? too dangerous I guess.....
Also:
I dont think it would be that expensive.
Our military budget is about 640 billion
Our veteran budget is about 1.6 billion
Approx 30% of the US are veterans.
So if we triple our veteran budget it would be approx 4.8 billion That is 90% of the US population. That part is easy, and sooo many less people would need Obama care.
Operations and maintenance $275.988 billion (AUDIT ME PLEASE!!!!!) serously
Military Personnel $155.690 billion (Troops are cheap!! Audit me please!!)
Procurement $133.603 billion (lol?!?)
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $76.990 billion (we need this)
Military Construction $21.169 billion (if the troops did it I.E. engineer corps or Seabees, big savings!)
Family Housing $3.173 billion (we need this, BAH, BAS, Fam SEP ect.)
Other Miscellaneous Costs $7.564 billion (AUDIT ME PLEASE!!!!!)
Atomic energy defense activities $19.308 billion (AUDIT ME PLEASE!!!!!)
Total Spending $693.485 billion +4.9%
If 3.15 million people were in the military, 1% opposed to our .5% we would spend 102 billion on payroll. at 5% of our population (16 million people) we would spend 510 billion. i used e-6 at 4 years for the base line.
It sounds like a lot, but how much would we be able to save in so many other areas?? Lot of external costs can be reduced by using military personal instead of the much more expensive civvies for a litany of jobs, construction, medical services ect. The military would be forced to be dependent upon itself, which would trim a lot of fat. It would also take weight off of state programs and expenditures like hospitals, special programs, police ect.
Good lord, so much energy going into worrying about what might be around the next corner. ........
Forget my opinion of guns. Like I've said before, I really don't give a hoot if you have one or not. It's the dumb excuses people come up with that gets the most annoying. I would sincerely have more respect for the person who is just honest and says, "I like guns, I think they're cool, the law says I can have one, and I feel better when I'm walking around with one in my pocket. You take your risks, I'll take mine." Why is that so hard for people to admit?
A and B.
A: I was explaining in response to a question.
B: It's part of the training. We were taught that if you have to shoot someone, to expect to be infront of the grand jury, to expect to be sued, and to expect to need a psychiatrist. In reverse order, because normal people don't go around shooting other people and it is because how our world works.
There would also be a percentage of conscientious objectors, who would ask for alternative service. So that would have to be set up, and an approval mechanism set in place.
Switzerland has a program for people who are denied service or for certain religious factions that cannot perform combat duties.
B: It's part of the training. We were taught that if you have to shoot someone, to expect to be infront of the grand jury, to expect to be sued, and to expect to need a psychiatrist. In reverse order, because normal people don't go around shooting other people and it is because how our world works.
Very good points.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
