American Gun Activist Shot by Own 4 Year Old Child

Originally posted by normbenign
It would be safer, except for the occasions when you needed a weapon for self defence.

Which is far more likely to happen if you have liberal gun control laws.

Over the years, I defended my life and property with a gun many times.
And I have never done so. Makes you stop and think, doesn't it.

As with anything, the risk/reward factors must be personally evaluated, and care exercised to minimize the risks. The mother in the cited case paid the ultimate price for her carelessness, and the child will pay for decades to come.
People are notoriously bad at assessing risk. Hence the need for government regulation in high risk behaviour.

This all has to be weighed against the positives that come with responsible gun ownership.
If there were any.

Your concluding argument is that everything involving guns where they are prohibited is a crime.
That is what 'prohibited' means. I am not sure what you are getting at other than a tautology.

NRA has been saying that for decades. Outlaw guns and only the outlaws will have them.
That is what the NRA has been saying. Don't attribute it to me because I never said any such thing.

I say: Outlaw guns and a lot less outlaws will have them.

What goes unsaid in that argument is that where guns aren't available, criminals use other means, which at times can be worse than guns.
Except that:
a) most of the alternatives criminals use are not worse than guns.
b) zero gun accidents.
c) many criminals simply don't try because they don't have the weapons ie you get fewer violent criminals.

Other weapons usually must be deployed, often with deadly effect.
Knives and other weapons are frequently used to threaten. I am not sure what weapons you are thinking of.

Personally, I'd rather be robbed at gunpoint, and go home broke and alive, than to be beaten or stabbed by a robber, and end up dead.
Can you provide any statistics or other actual evidence that more deaths result from violent crimes in countries with fewer guns.

How's that working out downunder with supposedly nobody having guns? I've read that the collection was a farce, with most people just throwing away useless relics and nonfunctioning guns.
Gun related deaths, gun violence and homicides by any method are all down significantly since the gun control laws were introduced.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia
Don't get your information from right wing gun lobby websites.

Guns are not illegal in Australia

Originally posted by twhitehead
Which is far more likely to happen if you have liberal gun control laws.

[b]Over the years, I defended my life and property with a gun many times.
And I have never done so. Makes you stop and think, doesn't it.

As with anything, the risk/reward factors must be personally evaluated, and care exercised to minimize the risks. The mother in th ...[text shortened]... 't get your information from right wing gun lobby websites.

Guns are not illegal in Australia

"And I have never done so. Makes you stop and think, doesn't it."

It make me think you'd be eaten alive in my environment.

"People are notoriously bad at assessing risk. Hence the need for government regulation in high risk behaviour."

The fallback position of control freaks. Give government all the control. What happens then when the government is the risk?

With guns, I take responsibility for my safety. Without them, you on your knees cry for a cop to find the robber (almost never happens), and subject yourself to them blaming you for being a victim.

On the matter of a tautology, prohibiting guns creating one is your invention, not mine. A gun is simply a tool, that may be used for good or evil. You can own one or not. Don't try to take mine away. I willingly accept the responsibility.

Originally posted by normbenign
It make me think you'd be eaten alive in my environment.

My point exactly. And the difference between our environments? Lax gun control laws in yours.

The fallback position of control freaks. Give government all the control. What happens then when the government is the risk?
Why is the government the risk? And no, we don't 'give the government all the control'. We are the government. We just take control collectively instead of individually and make decisions based on rational procedure rather than irrational individual choice.

With guns, I take responsibility for my safety. Without them, you on your knees cry for a cop to find the robber (almost never happens), and subject yourself to them blaming you for being a victim.
With guns, your safety is significantly reduced as you have already admitted.

On the matter of a tautology, prohibiting guns creating one is your invention, not mine.
No, it was definitely your sentence not mine.

A gun is simply a tool, that may be used for good or evil. You can own one or not. Don't try to take mine away. I willingly accept the responsibility.
But I don't willingly accept the responsibility of you having a gun. If you lived in my country I would vote to have your gun taken away. I think you are a serious risk to society with a gun.

Originally posted by twhitehead
My point exactly. And the difference between our environments? Lax gun control laws in yours.

[b]The fallback position of control freaks. Give government all the control. What happens then when the government is the risk?
Why is the government the risk? And no, we don't 'give the government all the control'. We are the government. We just take c ...[text shortened]... I would vote to have your gun taken away. I think you are a serious risk to society with a gun.[/b]

Funny isn't it that most legal gun owners in the US aren't the problem.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Curious as to why you thought this gem was relevant to this discussion? She was a shoplifter, did not use a gun, despite owning one.

What besides jewellery could she stuff $500 worth into her purse?

Seems would be better placed in a thread about failure to prosecute.

Originally posted by normbenign
What besides jewellery could she stuff $500 worth into her purse?

Designer clothing

Originally posted by shavixmir
I'm on about the bloody mother, you dope!

A kid's a kid is a kid.

We need more mother laws.

Originally posted by normbenign
Funny isn't it that most legal gun owners in the US aren't the problem.

it is funny how oblivious you are.

"Eighty-two percent of weapons involved in mass shootings over the last three decades have been bought legally, according to a database compiled by Mother Jones magazine that defines a mass shooting as taking the lives of at least four people in a public place. Using that criteria, Mother Jones found 73 mass shootings since 1982."

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/more-80-percent-guns-used-mass-shootings-obtained-legally-n474441

The post that was quoted here has been removed

These toddlers need to be rooted out - and who is financing them?
Surely a special agency needs to be formed - Homeland Insecurity or somesuch.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

That's for the department store to set conditions of entry.

Not Norms business to set those conditions, and it is especially not your business.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
it is funny how oblivious you are.

"Eighty-two percent of weapons involved in mass shootings over the last three decades have been bought legally, according to a database compiled by Mother Jones magazine that defines a mass shooting as taking the lives of at least four people in a public place. Using that criteria, Mother Jones found 73 mass shootings ...[text shortened]... ryline/san-bernardino-shooting/more-80-percent-guns-used-mass-shootings-obtained-legally-n474441

Reread Norms statement, your stats have nothing to do with what was said. The stat you're looking for is what percentage of legal gun owners were involved in mass shootings, it'll be hundredths of a point.

We cut you a lot of slack with your comprehension skills since English is a second language for you, it would be easy to make some disparaging remarks.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Reread Norms statement, your stats have nothing to do with what was said. The stat you're looking for is what percentage of legal gun owners were involved in mass shootings, it'll be hundredths of a point.

We cut you a lot of slack with your comprehension skills since English is a second language for you, it would be easy to make some disparaging remarks.

norm: "Funny isn't it that most legal gun owners in the US aren't the problem."
link: "Eighty-two percent of weapons involved in mass shootings over the last three decades have been bought legally,"

the point, oh moronic one, is that it only takes one nutter with a gun to cause a tragedy. the percentage of nuclear power plants that meltdown and cause a catastrophy is also very law, but just because of that we make sure that all possible measures are taken to prevent even one.

i don't give a flying fuk that most gun owners are law abiding citizens. mass shooters aren't random event in which you can say "oops" then continue to have abysmal gun control laws.

gun control prevents mass murders.
gun control lowers gun violence and gun suicides.
gun control lowers gun accidents.
these are facts.

that normbenign (and you) has no idea on what planet he lives on and assumes lawful gun owners aren't also a problem is a fact as well.