What's new
By:
Filters

Why are gun owners afraid to admit they own guns?

LogGrad98 said:
I'm not getting what is going on either. I made a comment tongue-in-cheek and you went super-serious with feelings and stuff. I said "bad guy" in a comment mocking a fake situation, you went all philosophical about the esoteric meaning of "bad guy" and the societal and intellectual impact of the term. Not sure how you got something so heavy from a comment so light. I couldn't care less about the term to be honest, use whatever you want. By telling someone they will "get over" something you imply that the person is over-reacting and it is border-line condescending and patronizing. Why go down that road at all? Did I offend you by using the term "bad guy" in a flippant manner? Do you need a hug?
Click to expand...

Read your first response to me. You're talking about me being condescending? Maybe I missed the humor in your comment and in re-reading it I'm still not seeing it as a comment meant to be a fun joke between you and I. Then, when I responded to your comment, and yeah I was a little annoyed with your first response, I wasn't being super nice. I'd even go so far as to say maybe I was rude. But then you post something that to me doesn't even make sense based on our conversation. I don't think I was ever freaking out.

I apologize for being rude and escalating things rather than taking the high road. My bad.
 
new study shows that states with stricter gun laws had fewer deaths and injuries to children

...The new results bolster the argument that gun restrictions may help avert some of the 4,250 deaths that occur each year among Americans under age 21, already the second leading cause of death in children after traffic accidents. States with stricter gun control laws had 4% fewer pediatric deaths, and those with universal background checks for firearm purchases in place for at least five years had a 35% lower risk, the study found....
Click to expand...
...Each state in the nation is allowed to implement its own regulations around buying and carrying guns. The Brady Campaign reviews them every year, gathering an expert panel to assess each state based on 33 gun policies and rate them on a 100 point scale. The higher the score, the stricter the firearm legislation.

In the new study, every 10 point increase in a state’s gun law score correlated with an 8% drop in firearm-related deaths. The protective effects remained even after the researchers took into account other variables, like gun ownership, education levels, race and income levels, registering a 4% drop in firearm-related deaths.

“These data suggest that strict firearm legislation may be protective of children even in areas of high gun ownership,” the researchers wrote....
Click to expand...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...merican-kids-die-study-shows?srnd=politics-vp
 
LogGrad98 said:
I'm not getting what is going on either. I made a comment tongue-in-cheek and you went super-serious with feelings and stuff. I said "bad guy" in a comment mocking a fake situation, you went all philosophical about the esoteric meaning of "bad guy" and the societal and intellectual impact of the term. Not sure how you got something so heavy from a comment so light. I couldn't care less about the term to be honest, use whatever you want. By telling someone they will "get over" something you imply that the person is over-reacting and it is border-line condescending and patronizing. Why go down that road at all? Did I offend you by using the term "bad guy" in a flippant manner? Do you need a hug?
Click to expand...

I need a hug.
 
Interesting that children are at lower risk of gun violence in states with stricter gun laws and it doesn't matter if those states have higher than average gun ownership rates.

So the number of guns isn't the more significant factor. The more significant factor is how seriously firearm responsibility is taken according to the law.

That's a big part of what I've been saying all along. The biggest reason I don't really support current pro-gun movements is because they don't seem to be interested in holding people accountable for irresponsible gun use. They aren't first and foremost advocating for gun safety, responsible ownership and a disciplined approach to gun use. Instead they simply seem to advocate for all guns all the time, to the exclusion of any other consideration.
 
green said:
<...>
Why would a Dr need to know? BECAUSE IT IS A GUN. It's dangerous.
<...>
Click to expand...
A hammer is dangerous too. I can use it to build something useful, or I can smash somebody's head.
Should someone ask me if I 've got a hammer?
Logic/arguments based on "dangerous things" can be really... dangerous.
That's the way I see it, just MHO of course.
 
outerspacefan said:
A hammer is dangerous too. I can use it to build something useful, or I can smash somebody's head.
Should someone ask me if I 've got a hammer?
Logic/arguments based on "dangerous things" can be really... dangerous.
That's the way I see it, just MHO of course.
Click to expand...

What can you build with a gun? Asking as a gun owner.
 
str8line said:
What can you build with a gun? Asking as a gun owner.
Click to expand...
Oh, in a broad sense I can build safety, for instance as a "last resource protection" for my family as I live in a kind of isolated place.
But your question seems more related to the narrative of my argument than to the argument itself.
The focus of the argument is the "dangerousness" of the things in itself.
It is enough of a condition that something is "dangerous" to allow or force quiestions into your private life?
Anyway, it was just a little, humble take...
 
Last edited:
I could be mistaken as I haven't gone back and reread the first 220+ posts in this thread, but I think it started in part as a discussion of whether or not pediatricians should be "allowed" to discuss gun safety as it relates to guns in the home as a public health concern - - and how some states were passing laws restricting any doctor initiated discussion on the topic (or really, on any hazardous things often kept in homes) and some courts were upholding these restrictions.

this article provides some context
https://khn.org/news/how-can-parents-pediatricians-discuss-guns-in-the-house/

so providing a data-driven study with actual numbers might encourage a discussion of ways to mitigate some of the public health concerns surrounding gun safety and guns in the home
 
outerspacefan said:
The focus of the argument is the "dangerousness" of the things in itself.
Click to expand...

Can we agree there are different degrees of danger? I have never heard of a small child accidentally killing a family member with a hammer. I'm not aware of any study that indicates having a hammer in a household makes it more likely a resident will die. Both of these are true of guns.

I don't have a solid-enough take to know the best ways to keep gun ownership safe, but I certainly know a deceptive, facile, and weak analogy.
 
Gameface said:
Interesting that children are at lower risk of gun violence in states with stricter gun laws and it doesn't matter if those states have higher than average gun ownership rates.

So the number of guns isn't the more significant factor. The more significant factor is how seriously firearm responsibility is taken according to the law.

That's a big part of what I've been saying all along. The biggest reason I don't really support current pro-gun movements is because they don't seem to be interested in holding people accountable for irresponsible gun use. They aren't first and foremost advocating for gun safety, responsible ownership and a disciplined approach to gun use. Instead they simply seem to advocate for all guns all the time, to the exclusion of any other consideration.
Click to expand...

I couldn’t agree more.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
 
bigb said:
I couldn’t agree more.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

So, imo, the whole thread is off-topic.

gun owners don't want people knowing their business. Well, unless they do.

The classic gun rack in the truck window is hard to find now, though. I bet it was a bummer getting your truck keyed when you were inside the bar looking for that gal with the exaggerated figure on your mud flaps.

Everybody knows the UN has always been aiming to remove private guns from civilian hands, so that only jack-booted thugs working for the honchos can have them.

The whole liberal bleeding heart show has always been about that. Nothing more.

So, it is only prudent to keep your guns outta sight nowadays. Handy, but outta sight.

The whole scene of prying guns outta cold, dead fingers....along with old tattered Bibles I suppose..... is just rhetorical.

The basic idea is to pry those state-issued guns outta the statist thugs' fingers.... along with their lists of known gun owners.....
 
outerspacefan said:
Oh, in a broad sense I can build safety, for instance as a "last resource protection" for my family as I live in a kind of isolated place.
But your question seems more related to the narrative of my argument than to the argument itself.
The focus of the argument is the "dangerousness" of the things in itself.
It is enough of a condition that something is "dangerous" to allow or force quiestions into your private life?
Anyway, it was just a little, humble take...
Click to expand...
There are degrees of danger. A gun is way more dangerous than a hammer for instance.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Gameface said:
Read your first response to me. You're talking about me being condescending? Maybe I missed the humor in your comment and in re-reading it I'm still not seeing it as a comment meant to be a fun joke between you and I. Then, when I responded to your comment, and yeah I was a little annoyed with your first response, I wasn't being super nice. I'd even go so far as to say maybe I was rude. But then you post something that to me doesn't even make sense based on our conversation. I don't think I was ever freaking out.

I apologize for being rude and escalating things rather than taking the high road. My bad.
Click to expand...

LOL where is my apology for being rude and escalating things? Never mind won't ever happen. wink
 
green said:
jimmy eat jazz is hitting homers in here.

I think a lot of this boils down to too many people buying the fear and hype the NRA is pushing. You go through this thread and we all are really, really close to being on the same page:

Gun ownership is ok.
Guns can be very dangerous.
Licensing gun owners is ok.
Required safety classes are ok.

Open Carry is the only real sticking point, and even that is largely irrelevant.

Yet, if you took this to the NRA, they'd freak, start screaming about socialism and nazi's and communism.
Click to expand...

Don't agree with Licensing gun owners is ok, that just gives them a map to get your guns. Didn't one of the democrat presidential hopefuls say she was for taking guns and would use an executive order to do so?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top