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.
If anti's focused in hand with pro gunners and promoted safety training and courses the likelyhood of accidents and misuse would diminish but anti's don't want to do that their idea of gun safety is to ban and be scared of them and the thought of people handling and training with them to learn safety goes against their grain.
None in mine nor any in my extended family. As a matter of fact, I don't know anyone who has had this happen to. Sure, it happens. But it is nowhere the life-taker autos are for people and pools are for children. Just like auto and pool (ownership & use) - Safety is the key to help (not guarantee) not have accidents.
I've only had 1 family member die due to a firearm and it was only 3 years ago. He was trespassing while poaching deer (we assume) and he was shot/killed by the land owner after my cousin fired a round which struck his home. I know he was a meth head tweaker and we all expected him to end up in prison eventually, I fully support the land owner shooting him.
Also, isn't even ONE rampage like the Sandy Hook massacre one too many?
Absolutely. But this knee jerk, disgusting exploitation of the tragedy is not going to solve the problem.
Unless ALL guns had been taken out of ALL homes, this tragedy still would have happened. The guns were legally purchased, and stolen by a crazy person. He went to a gun free zone, and committed murder, which is a crime.
And while every child wounded or killed by guns each year is awful, there are FAR more killed by their parents fists. They are 100 times more likely to die in a swimming pool than get shot. Should we ban pools?
When will lefties admit their ultimate goal is to disarm law-abiding citizens? Because if safety was truly their concern, they would turn their sights to all the other child-killers first.
Absolutely. But this knee jerk, disgusting exploitation of the tragedy is not going to solve the problem.
Unless ALL guns had been taken out of ALL homes, this tragedy still would have happened. The guns were legally purchased, and stolen by a crazy person. He went to a gun free zone, and committed murder, which is a crime.
And while every child wounded or killed by guns each year is awful, there are FAR more killed by their parents fists. They are 100 times more likely to die in a swimming pool than get shot. Should we ban pools?
When will lefties admit their ultimate goal is to disarm law-abiding citizens? Because if safety was truly their concern, they would turn their sights to all the other child-killers first.
Well I'm with you on preventing child abuse. On average FIVE children a day die from neglect or abuse in the U.S., about 1800 children a year.
Does it matter?
The point is that having a gun in the house facilitated the end result.
And, not sure how it is "disgusting to insinuate that these were all accidental." If anything, accidental deaths would be easier to justify and/or excuse than those that were deemed homicides or assaults, wouldn't you think?
The point remains, if there is a gun in a home, it is highly likely that someone who lives in that home will suffer for it.
It matters because the gun is not the problem. Unless it went off accidentally, someone CHOSE to shoot it another human being.
As for your complete lie about it being highly likely that someone in the home will suffer from it, where is the proof of that? Show me the stats.
Or have you, like most liberals, twisted the narrative, thinking nobody will notice? More likely to be used on someone in the home rather than an intruder is FAR different than more likely to be used compared to not used. There are millions of gun owners who have NEVER had someone in their home wounded or shot by their gun. So quit spewing your nonsense, and making things up to fit your narrative.
NPR does a great job of reviewing how the gun fetishists have successfully silenced any and all research into how guns relate to public safety. These means most of the studies on guns and gun violence are now almost 15 years old because Republicans have virtually made it illegal for researchers to do studies on the subject. Here's a great article everyone should listen to about guns, gun safety, how guns usually end up being used (they're 43 times more likely to be used to kill someone in the home then ever to defend the home from an intruder), and how Republicans have successfully gagged research.
This statement is actually correct. Yes, a gun at home is more likely to be used to kill some family members or someone you know.
However, it is a blunt lie to use this argument again guns. Why? Most crimes happen between the people who know each other anyway. It would shock me if the gun was not used to harm someone in the house more than an stranger.
It's great that the Republicans and NRA have de-funded this program because this is not only junk science but a complete fraud. The people who do this kind of "research" should be stripped away with all their credentials.
This polarization and overreaction has done wonders for NRA membership along with placing hundreds of thousands of more guns into the hands of the general public.
Gun stores are sold out of most stock on a consistent basis and gun show attendance and the subsequent purchasing from them are setting historic sales records on a weekly basis.
Keep up your overreaction because it's fueling the exact thing you want to stop.
It matters because the gun is not the problem. Unless it went off accidentally, someone CHOSE to shoot it another human being.
As for your complete lie about it being highly likely that someone in the home will suffer from it, where is the proof of that? Show me the stats.
Or have you, like most liberals, twisted the narrative, thinking nobody will notice? More likely to be used on someone in the home rather than an intruder is FAR different than more likely to be used compared to not used. There are millions of gun owners who have NEVER had someone in their home wounded or shot by their gun. So quit spewing your nonsense, and making things up to fit your narrative.
Ah, so you finally admit it.
As for your personal attack regarding the statement that it is highly likely that someone will suffer from having a gun in the house, did you somehow miss the title of the thread?
Anyway, I personally don't care what anyone believes or doesn't. I do, however, find all of this twisting and turning in a vain attempt to hide from reality vastly amusing. You want to own a gun, own one. Makes no difference to me. But at least be adult enough to own up to all of the detritus that goes along with that ownership.
"Having a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death — and that of your spouse and children.
And it doesn’t matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own.
If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide."
I'm not surprised the gun fetishists have their own propaganda sites which completely ignore facts and reality.
As do you. But it comes as no surprise that you don't have an original thought.
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.
