I have had more violent encounters outside the US then in them. Yes ancedotal but violence, or the potential for it, is everywhere. There are some extremely safe areas in the US.
Gun Control
- Thread starter larryselbows
- Start date
I have had more violent encounters outside the US then in them. Yes ancedotal but violence, or the potential for it, is everywhere. There are some extremely safe areas in the US.
Yup. An accidental discharge is almost a misnomer. If you pull the trigger, the gun should discharge.
What's a gun nut? Be more specific.
Furthermore, I've always viewed the adjective "sensible" when talking about gun rights and laws as code speak for let's take away more of their rights and abilities to procure firearms. When you say sensible, be more specific.
Here in Los Angeles, for instance, in order to purchase a handgun, I have to have a current handgun safety certificate. If I don't, then I have to take a test and pay for one. $25.00. If I am buying a handgun from a dealer, I then have to pay a DROS (dealer register of sale) fee ($35.00) and wait 10 days before I can pickup the handgun. If I am buying the handgun from a private party, I have to take that handgun into a dealer, pay a PPT fee ($35.00) and wait 10 days. I can't ship any ammunition into the city of Los Angeles, so either I have to buy a PO Box in a neighboring city outside of LA county or use a friends address in a similar location. On top of all that, only guns that have been registered and submitted the California handgun roster can be purchased in California.
Is all of that sensible? Will all of those laws and regulations stop someone from committing a crime? Remember, once you've decided to kill people and essentially break the ultimate law, no other laws matter.
Related questions, is gun violence worse than other violence? Knife? Bat? An improvised weapon? What about an acid attack?
So if the taco stand you are talking was attacked by a guy with a sword and he murdered someone while robbing it--is that different than if he used a gun?
To me the message should be about violence in general.
On a single victim by victim comparison I would say no and in some cases less (such as a gunshot to the head v. being beaten to death with a bat). But I would say the speed with which it can escalate to multiple victims v, a knife or bat is much worse.
For example, guy robs a taco stand and people jump him to stop him, the chances of stopping him before mutliple fatalities is lower if he has a firearm.
Jamezz
Well-Known Member
To all of those who advocate for gun control, nonsense. The 2nd Amendment wasn't written for hunting, fun n' games, but to grant power to the People, thus avoiding that our gov't becomes a tyranny. That's right let's have these low IQ cops and the mislead military be the only ones that can carry guns and use them on the People when the shtf. That'll make me feel safe!
Does this lawsuit stand a chance? It seems like a stretch to me.
https://news.yahoo.com/families-newtown-victims-sue-gunmaker-seller-141435892.html
https://news.yahoo.com/families-newtown-victims-sue-gunmaker-seller-141435892.html
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Yes
A gun is a way more effective killing tool than a knife, bat, or acid
(I have been stabbed with a knife and hit in the head with a baseball bat.)
Sidebottom2beams
Active Member
Lol the North Koreans and the Iranians say the same thing about the US and they are considered nut cases lol.
If you can't trust the government surely they should be able to have nuclear reactors to protect themselves from the US government.
If you can't trust the government surely they should be able to have nuclear reactors to protect themselves from the US government.
North Korea is a nut case because they starve 10s of thousands of their own citizens and are a brutal, human rights denying regime.
Iran is a nut case because they are openly calling for the genocide of an entire people and support those groups trying to do so all while denying their own citizens basic rights.
But hey! Almost there with that comparison, no really.
Huh? A guy can take out more victims with a baseball bat than with a AR-15? I can't quite wrap my head around that.
seems reasonable to me, I certainly wouldn't have a problem with those regulations...
And on the subject of accidental discharge, aren't there situations where the trigger is pulled (or pushed or however it works) unintentionally, perhaps while some other action is taking place? It just seems I've heard of situations where a gun discharges as the owner is cleaning it and stuff like that. Obviously they're not handling it properly, but it's still referred to as an accidental discharge.
On an individual victim per victim basis the bat or knife would be roughly equal (sometimes one is vorse than the other a vic versa) to a gun.
On an ability to escalate into mulitple victims the gun is clearly worse.
Not as clear as i could have made it. My bad.
Within the firearms community the term "negligent discharge" is typically used instead of "accidental discharge."
I'd post the 4 rules of firearms safety again, but they're easy to find, I've posted them on Jazzfanz at least a half-dozen times, and they have been included in the instruction manual of every firearm I've ever purchased. Anyway, negligent/accidental discharge can only happen if you violate the 4 basic rules of firearm safety. Also, for anyone to be injured due to mishandling a firearm 2 or more of the 4 rules need to be violated.
IMO, any violation of the 4 basic rules should be considered when an incident involving a firearm is being investigated or prosecuted. I believe that firearms owners should be legally required to follow the 4 basic rules at all times. That any "accident" that happens when those rules are not followed is at the very least considered an act of negligence, but should often be used to show a wilful disregard for the safe handling of a firearm, a disregard for the safety of others, and a disregard for the law.
If the 4 rules are followed it is virtually impossible to accidentally cause injury to yourself or anyone else, and like I said, 2 or more of the rules have to be violated in order for discharge to result in injury.
I know you consider those CA regulations pretty reasonable, but I think the point is that they have no meaningful impact on the use of firearms to commit a crime. They are quite burdensome and it seems like they are burdensome for the sake of being burdensome and nothing else.
One of the rules there is pretty ridiculous.
Let's say I want to sell a firearm I own to a good friend of mine. Here in Utah my friend gives me the money, I give him the gun and that's it. In CA my friend and I have to drive to a gun store. We have to pay the gun store a fee for facilitating this transaction, the gun store then has to hold the firearm for 10 days at which point my friend can go back and pick it up. If I want to let my friend borrow my gun I can do that, no paperwork, no wait. The 10 day waiting period is for nothing other than waiting. Nothing is happening during that time. So, if you were a female being threatened by an ex-boyfriend or something, and you felt that you needed a gun for protection you would have to wait for 10 days until you could posses a gun for your protection.