The NRA wouldn’t allow stupid people to handle a deadly weapon, would they?
A Pennsylvania man accused of firing a gun through his neighbor’s window told a judge he didn’t know another way to remove bullets from the weapon.
Well, what else would you have him do? Keep a loaded gun in his house? Clear the chamber by popping one off in a random direction, then put the safety on, and lock it in your gun safe. Basic gun safety. Everyone knows that.
It needs to be repeated, “responsible law-abiding gun owner” is the same logical fallacy as “no true Scotsman”. When a gun fondler decides to be irresponsible or break the law, their guns don’t magically disappear. They need to be held accountable for their weapons and the law has to stop with this “accidental shooting” bullshit. These days you can kill your wife then claim it was an accident and not get punished, but be the wrong race when confronted by a cop and you can die.
No fair PZ!
I was gonna write about this one.
In any case, this is the *epitome* of irresponsible gun ownership. “I didn’t know how to take out the bullets, so I fired the gun”. I’m sure the gundamentalists out there will defend this guy somehow.
I doubt too many people will defend him. I’m guessing the response will be “that guy’s an idiot, he doesn’t represent the rest of us Responsible Gun Owners™”
At that point he will no longer be a member of the tribe and thus it will be “unfair” to use him as an example of gun owner idiocy.
The article says he’s a convicted felon, so he wasn’t supposed to have a gun in the first place. So the NRA can easily claim he doesn’t count. Of course if he legally possessed the gun the NRA would still claim he’s not a true responsible firearms owner.
Cue “if the neighbour had had a gun, that wouldn’t have happened” comments in 5, 4, 3…
In college I had a female friend that worked as a park ranger and decided to buy a gun for protection. I was playing on the computer when I got a phone call from her. She had cocked the .38 revolver and didn’t know what to do.
I hurried over there, carefully let the hammer back down and then unloaded the pistol. I then told her to either get rid of it or take a gun safety class. Definitely one or the other, or even both. But don’t handle weapons if you don’t know anything about them.
On the subject of smart, safe, responsible gun owners, I think of the open carry protesters who the NRA now fully supports.
My father, who grew up hunting in rural areas, is a Vietnam vet, an NRA member, and an NRA certified shooting sports instructor who teaches shotgun shooting to Boy Scouts (in other words, nothing like me), taught me very early in life that a gun is not a toy. That it is something you use to shoot things. Sometimes targets for practice or even for fun, sometimes hunting, sometimes other people (hopefully not the latter, but it’s reality). He made it very clear to me that guns kill. And so it has occurred to me that the open carry protesters are not carrying their guns for self defense. They’re not on their way to a hunting trip (a hunter would have left it in the gun rack in the truck), nlor to the target range. They’re using the gun as a political prop. A toy. They’re using a deadly weapon to make a political point. They have just failed the very first lesson of gun safety that my father taught me. A gun is not a toy. You don’t play games with it, ever. Every open carry protester is an irresponsible gun owner, by definition.
Then I think of the recent cases where permitted concealed carrying teachers have shot themselves. The next thing my father taught me was that you never keep a gun loaded. If you’re about to use it and therefore have it loaded, you don’t have a round chambered until you’re ready to fire. You also keep the safety on until you’re ready to fire.
But the whole concealed carry notion seems to be that you can be quick on the draw and have your gun out and shoot the bad guy first. Which means it has to be loaded, with a round chambered. And some of these guns don’t even come with safeties now. Can’t be slowed down when up against a bad guy. So now, because they live in a world drawn out of movies where they actually think they’ll be in a shootout, and that these speed advantages will help them take out a guy who already has his gun out and is shooting, they’re violating the next three rules of gun safety. They’re making an accidental shooting far more likely to respond to a risk that is just tiny. So basically, by carrying a concealed weapon, they’re demonstrating that they’re irresponsible gun owners, by definition.
Basically, if you carry a gun in public, you’ve outed yourself as an irresponsible gun owner, even by the NRA’s own rules of gun safety.
Apologies for weird text insertions, my hard drive crashed and I seem to have lost the piece of software that restricted my track pad sensitivity so I keep jumping around while typing.
You know as much as the NRA Brigade will swarm in to chant “No True Responsible Gun-wielder”, it seems disingenuous because they specifically advocate for EVERYONE to have guns. That’s their interpretation of “right to bear arms”. That’s why they fearmonger about “bad guys with guns”. Every “good” person should have the ability to get a gun, and are morally obligated to have a gun, because otherwise the Kriminals will break down your door and Kill Your Family. They don’t want background checks, they don’t want gun registration, they don’t want any kind of gun control or any kind of safety precaution that would prevent someone from immediately and easily getting a gun in their hands to fight off the Viking Horde. So when suddenly we get gun fetishists behaving badly, when we see idiots misusing guns, or see terrible accidents that could have possibly been prevented, they immediately invoke the Almighty Wisdom of Hindsight Bias and the Almighty Power of “No True Scotsman” to define every single case out of existence and relevance. They are completely willing to imagine a world where accidents happen and where stupid people with guns is a demographic higher than four people. They want to ignore the dangers of owning a gun, since it is just a simple tool dontcha know, while lecturing everyone at length about how the power of Gun, and only Gun, can save our lives with its superior capability in the field of long-range murder. They talk out of both sides of their mouths on every issue. They are cognitive dissonance in human form. And their stubborn, ideological, garbled mindset, multipled across thousands or even millions of individuals, is why this issue is a political hellscape and why America will continue to be the leader in “First World” gun deaths. U! S! A! U! S! A!
But, of course, we can’t close any of the loopholes that might have allowed him to acquire that gun.
gussnarp @7:
(I didn’t see any weird text insertions)
I have long felt open carry advocates were irresponsible from a different angle-not caring that people around them are often afraid bc they don’t know whether or not these gun toting fools are going to start shooting up the supermarket, Target, or fast food joint. It strikes me as a warning to others “I’ve got a gun and I’m not afraid to use it”, but it also comes off as terrorizing the population.
Your thoughts on the violation of gun safety rules were insightful. Thanks.
@anteprepro – Yeah, somehow they expect that everyone who isn’t a “criminal” is capable of being a responsible gun owner and will, of course, go out and get training before they get their essential firearm and carry it everywhere. This goes hand in hand with the belief in “law abiding” gun owners, which ignores the fact that so much crime, including murders and assaults with firearms, is committed by people without a criminal record, or the fact that criminologists are pretty agreed on: anyone can become a criminal under the right circumstances.
They argue for responsible gun ownership by advocating irresponsible gun ownership. It’s all so self refuting that it’s mind boggling.
Also, this story for some reason reminds me of this:
http://happynicetimepeople.com/colbert-report-profiles-florida-gun-hero-video/
Where as the person in this story might just simply be incompetent and endangered his neighbors, the man in the segment in that link is a ticking time bomb who is recklessly disregarding the safety of others.
But who cares about the safety others? It’s all about your personal FREEEEEEEDOM.
That’s the obvious question, isn’t it? Where did Mr. Felon get his gun from? It’s just as likely he bought it from someone who legally owned it as from some gun selling crook. Compare that with the situation in Canada, where you can legally possess a firearm only if you have a firearms license.
Hey, if the neighbour had been a gun nut and taken the shot as a cue to return fire and kill him, you’d have the story of a Brave Gun Haver defending himself and his cowering, helpless family against an assault by a mad criminal, just like all these Responsible Gun Owners imagine when they masturbate.
So clearly the solution is more guns, and also more restrictions on the rights of felons.
::sigh::
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/louisiana-restaurant-offers-discount-to-armed-customers-i-just-need-to-see-a-weapon/
What type of felony did he commit and how long ago was it? Are we talking a non-violent crime like fraud? Are we talking about GTA as a teenager? Are we talking about repeated drunk driving offenses? Just as gussnarp points out the assumption that everyone who isn’t a criminal can handle a gun responsibility, being a criminal at some point in the past doesn’t mean they can’t be law-abiding later on in life.
Whatever felony he committed, it was apparently enough to get him prohibited from owning firearms, as he was charged with “persons not to possess firearms.”
http://www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/news/communities/langhorne/police-middletown-man-charged-with-firing-bullet-into-neighbor-s/article_d77cf68a-a161-5ba8-8f30-2e6cc2601ca6.html
With a gun there are many safety backups. Up to three can fail and you’re still protected.
1. Don’t chamber a bullet unless you intend to shoot something.
2. Don’t aim the gun at anything that you would regret shooting.
3. Keep the safety on until you’re ready to shoot.
4. Keep finger away from trigger until all is ready to shoot.
These are basic and simple and not new and must be understood by every gun owner.
(You shouldn’t even be allowed near a gun if you don’t understand these)
So if you accidentally shoot something (person or property) it should be considered
evidence of your incompetence to own or possess a gun for the remainder of your life.
No second chances. No retraining, since for you, training obviously doesn’t work.
More info on the “convicted felon” aspect: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/pa-man-unloads-gun-firing-neighbor-house-report-article-1.1956513
So the felony was a burgarly when he was 17. He is 31 now. But he was still not legally allowed to have these guns. But the NRA doesn’t approve of the fact that he would have such restrictions placed on him!
Check these out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://aattp.org/new-nra-backed-georgia-law-lets-felons-claim-stand-your-ground-and-allows-guns-everywhere/
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=183542
In a comment that I was unable to post because my computer fucked up, I was going to note something similar to that last article: The right-wingers are poisoning things at both ends. As gussnarp pointed out, ANYONE could become a criminal, but they refuse to understand this. Which leads to them supporting the proliferation of guns, under the assumption that there is a distinct criminal class and all criminals will have black market ties and get guns anyway even if they are illegal, because all criminals are mobsters or something. And they compensate for this by being Tough on Crime, by supporting the War on Drugs and ensuring that legal system is overly harsh, favors shoving people in jail with insufficient evidence, and do not lift a finger to prevent prisoner rape or abuse. They WANT prison to be hell. And so when people escape prison and are given no support or resources after having endured years of confinement and outright human rights violations, and they go back to crime, the same old people will just shake their heads and say “put ’em back in for longer this time!”. They are facilitating violent crime and actively exacerbating it after the fact, but they still get to self-righteously believe that they are making things better because they are Tough on Crime. The clueless, amoral fuckers.
Oh my fucking Christ. Straight from the horse’s ass on the subject:
http://www.gunbanfacts.com/universal-background-checks.aspx (An NRA run website)
They spend the rest of the article opposing background checks on the basis that Kriminals get their guns illegally anyway while Law Abiding Citizens get their guns from stores. Seriously.
So yeah, the NRA does not give a shit about preventing convicted felons from just flat out buying guns. Their policy of “shoot first, ask questions later” seems to apply to those getting shot at as well…
What the fuck. Even if we set aside the fact that the guy had forgotten / never been taught how to unload a gun, there is still the fact that he shot someones house. He didn’t even think to shoot say… the fucking dirt.
What the hell.
If the NRA did prevent stupid people from handling guns, there would be no NRA.
This is a perfect example of why the 2nd Amendment needs to be re-written. In the days when flintlocks were the epitome of firearm technology, it was nearly impossible for an untrained person to fire a gun. But today, even though you must take a test and demonstrate some skill at driving before you are allowed to solo drive a car, any babe-in-the-woods with a few bucks can take home in her pocket a device specifically designed to make it easy to kill multiple people.
THAT IS JUST WRONG!
Tony, #15,
So… literally robbery at gunpoint.
“Show me you have a gun and I’ll give you money”
@7 gussnarp:
Yeah…those open carry people usually do mean to be threatening people. They’re trying to freak people out, so that the freaked out people will legislate to ban open carry, and then the NRA can argue that constitutional rights are being restricted, so that they can make concealed carry laws weaker.
You’re dead on about the concealed carry people, too. They talk about carrying their handguns “cocked and locked” whenever possible, which means with a round chambered, hammer locked, and with the safety on, so that you just disengage the safety to be ready to fire. This is supposedly “safer” than carrying without a round chambered (I can’t remember how they argued this…maybe by saying chambering under stress is more likely to produce an accidental discharge?).
Saad @24
Robbery at gunpoint is a bit extreme here, seeing as the discount is entirely voluntary and free of coercion. It’s still fucking stupid and is pretty much courting gun accidents, but “robbery” doesn’t fit.
Knabb #26,
I meant it to be a joke, but ruined it by putting the word literally in there. :doh:
Reasons you might be temporarily or permanently not responsible to have a gun in your possession:
* Mentally ill
* Very sad/depressed to the point of potentially suicidal
* Tired
* Under the influence (of anything)
* Physically unwell
* Scared of other people or situations (ahem, America)
* Angry
* Underage
* Insufficiently trained in gun handling
* Prejudiced
* Driven by ideologies
* Distracted or agitated by an event
* Absent-minded, even briefly
* Insufficient empathy or social skills
* Eyesight issues / poor aim and other technical challenges
If you NEVER suffer from any of these problems, you might make a responsible gun owner, although it’s likely you wouldn’t want a gun, unless you have good reason to be involved in hunting or competitive marksmanship (and then, you’d probably prefer the gun kept in a club-house, or something).
gussnarp #7
Your father might have taught you that, but as far as I can tell, modern gun fondlers really do believe in a constitutionally protected right to collect guns because they’re cool. And a right to do it ignorantly and irresponsibly.
When I was little, we had neighbors who hunted. My family was nothing like that, but we definitely had no worries about out neighbors, though I believe they had quite a home arsenal. We knew what their guns were for, and trusted them. I believe (though I have no data) that the amount of purely pornographic interest in guns is higher than ever, even as interest in hunting declines (which is fine, but besides the point).
There is really nothing good to say about this trend, and yes, many of these people own guns because they are cool toys, and would probably be offended if you told them that their guns weren’t toys or that they were bad people for thinking of their guns as toys. Assault rifles, unless you are fighting a war, enforcing the law, or engaging in criminal activities are grown-up toys just like jet skis or snowmobiles. They certainly aren’t for anything useful (even if you want to count hunting).
I never even understood where people got the idea that the 2nd amendment has anything to do with guns. It is badly written, but seems like it could apply to anything that can be used as a weapon. If I am allowed to walk around with a gun I don’t know how to use, why shouldn’t I be allowed to walk around with a an unlit Molotov cocktail and some matches?
“My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. My right to shoot my gun ends never.”
The PA man is trying to argue he fired out of negligence (after claiming he hadn’t fired). It’s not clear to me we should take his claims at face value; was he shooting at the neighbour’s dog but missed, or somesuch?
I’d say RTFM, but even if it came with a manual, he probably threw it out.
Re: Open carry in public: imagine if it became accepted everywhere. How could we determine who’s suspicious? It’d only make things easier for criminals.
And in most cases if you’re using Assault rifles to enforce the law, you’re using it as a toy.
Paul BC @29:
It’s amusing (in a way) to try to get a 2nd Amendment fetishist to justify why citizens should be allowed to have guns, but not rocket launchers (or worse).
Bronze Dog @32:
That was my thinking WRT to the link I posted @15. Given how quick to anger some people are, I’d hate to be in a restaurant filled with people toting guns. As a bartender, I think about the times I’ve had to cut someone off. Just the thought of cutting off the wrong person is scary.
The suburbs are scary places. I suppose rural PA is even worse, though.
I lived in PA and we did have a bear wandering around on our lawn once, and heard stories of people seeing bears looking in through their skylights. Never felt the need to carry around a gun to protect myself from them, though (or shoot a neightbor’s house in case it was a bear).
“Unfamiliar with guns” but owns at least three…
Re: Tony @35: Yeah, I imagine in such a world, bartending would become a much more hazardous job. And when a bartender got shot, I suspect the gun fondlers would blame the victim for working around drunk people. Oh, and they can’t take away the guns, just car keys because America!
Completely apropos of nothing, but after looking at some of anteprepro’s links at 19, I wonder which is easier for an ex-convict: having your right to own a gun reinstated, or your right to vote reinstated*?
*in states (if any) where convicts face both potential restrictions.
Bronze Dog @ 32:
“I’d say RTFM, but even if it came with a manual, he probably threw it out.
Re: Open carry in public: imagine if it became accepted everywhere. How could we determine who’s suspicious? It’d only make things easier for criminals.”
He’d have to be able to read. Besides, how did this goober get them In in the first place? Taking them out is just the reverse!
Easier for would-be mass killers especially- just toss a lit string of firecrackers in the street, duck & cover, and let the fun begin.
Bronze Dog @39:
Or they’d get blamed for not being armed themselves.
Pen @ # 28, I see what you’re trying to do. Don’t do it though. Especially not the first two points. Being sad or depressed doesn’t necessarily equate with suicidal ideation and mental illness isn’t correlated with an increase in violence or necessarily a particular detachment from reality that would make a person incapable of using a gun without hurting or killing people.
Honestly, it’d be way easier to say this, ‘No one should have a gun.’ And in fact, I’ll say it. No one should have a gun. No one.
Gonna happen? No. Gonna happen with, uh …sensible ….gun …advocates …like gussnarp around? No.
But, really, there’s no reason to specifically point out mental illness as a factor in determining who shouldn’t have a gun.
While it’s a little offtopic, I find it interesting that the term “ex-felon” seems to have been scrubbed from the American lexicon. This guy apparently served his time, and yet is still permanently branded a felon.
You know, if I couldn’t figure out how to unload a gun, I’d Google “how to unload [X gun]”. Or try Youtube. Or go to the library. Or call my gun nut brother-in-law.
My first instinct wouldn’t be to shoot the damned thing, but oerhaps this is why I’m not a gun owner.
“Google! Safer than firing bullets into your neighbor’s house!”
Well…at least it was a revolver. I can’t escape the mental image of him trying to work through a 10-round magazine. “Damn! Another bullet just popped up! How do these things keep getting in there!”
Part of the problem is that behind closed doors the NRA and supporters will laugh at the idiot, but try and make one law that would make it harder for such an idiot to own a gun . . . and they will defend his right to be an idiot with every fiber of their being.
That is a truly terrifying example of the irresponsibility and disregard for the safety of others to be found among gun owners. Leaviong aside the terrible gun massacers that happen all to ofetn, how anyone can hear about an evernt like this and still defend the ridiculous lack of effective gun controls in the US is simp[ly beyond me.
I like Tony! The Queer Shoop’s term @ 2 – they are gundamentalists. Every bit as fanatical about their guns as the most ardent xian is about their sky fairy, and just as happy to see blood shed in the name of protecting their delusions from criticism.
From the few photos I’ve seen, it looks like the “open carry” Darwin Award contestants* (oh my aren’t you all precious? You all deserve to win!) are all white. Don’t they even stop to think that if they have the inalienable right to open carry, so does everybody else? That groups of heavily armed people who are Not White would have the same rights as they do?
* pity that instead of collecting the prize they so clearly merit** they are more likely to kill someone else.
** I don’t actually want even these idiots to shoot themselves or each other. They just match the description for Award winners.
YOU WILL NEVER TAKE AWAY THE SEVERAL NUCLEAR WARHEADS I HAVE HIDDEN IN KEY LOCATIONS AROUND WASHINGTON DC. 2ND AMENDMENT!!!!
Note: the above is a work of satire; I have not actually hidden any nuclear warheads around Washington, DC. Only the shadow government has done that. :-P
The 2nd Amendment refers to “the people’ collectively and not “any given random asshole” individually for a reason – the same reason it mentions a well-regulated militia.
But the NRA has done everything in its power to make it as hard as possible to keep guns out of the wrong hands.
Isn’t making claims about the NRA’s position on this building strawmen until they take a position to be evaluated?
Area Man @53–To the Wayne LaPierre NRA, the only wrong hands are the ones WITHOUT a gun in them. (And, of course, the alternate species known as “krrrriminalz”)
fentex @53:
Since you didn’t say who you’re responding to, am I to assume your comment is directed at the OP?
If so, speculation as to how the NRA might respond is informed by how they have responded to gun related incidents in the past. We know that the NRA takes a very pro-gun stance. We also know from their website that they have a list of gun safety rules. From that, it is reasonable to infer that they should not support people using guns irresponsibly, no? The man in the OP clearly used his gun irresponsibly, so the NRA ought to-if they become aware of this incident-condemn the actions of this former felon. Right?
Except, based on how they’ve responded to incidents of this nature in the past, I don’t think they’d condemn irresponsible gun owners like the man in the OP.
So no. I see no strawman.
In the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, one of only two gun control measures introduced at the Federal level was an expanded background check. The NRA opposed it and it failed. (The other was an assault weapons ban, which the NRA opposed and it failed.) So I don’t think we have to wonder what the NRA’s reaction would be to this case. They would agree that a convicted felon should not have had access to the gun but would stridently oppose any attempt to beef-up background checks or require background checks for person-to-person transfers. In fact, reflexively opposing any and all gun control measures is their M.O. It’s how they keep the Overton Window from creeping even slightly in the direction of restricted access to guns. (Their other M.O. is to make sure that our society is flooded with guns and then claim that we need more guns to protect us from the guns. As a result, getting a gun is easier in some places than buying beer.)
Thomathy@43 – yes, but you see, shooting a gun, even if it kills someone, is not necessarily an act of violence. Many shootings, like this one, have nothing to do with violence. It is true that not all mental illnesses, or physical illnesses, or emotional outbursts, will lead to shooting accidents, but I think that on average, they are all up there with tiredness and distraction.
Anyway, I broadly agree with you, my point is that we are all sometimes or often not fit to be in charge of guns. I was taught to use a gun when I was incredibly upset about something my instructor didn’t know about. I remember the battle to keep in mind what I was holding. It kept trying to seem no more signifcant than a cellphone. If life had thrown a little extra something into that mix, who knows?
WRONG. Any discharge of weapon, whether on purpose or by negligence (there are no accidents with true gun safety), are violent acts. Trying to claim otherwise is bullshit.
Nope, given ANY discharge is a violent act, all killings and woundings are violent. Why are you excusing the obvious?
I personally find it ridiculous that firearms are less heavily regulated than motor vehicles.
And that the second-worst case scenario, behind outright banning firearms — instituting a registration policy — would merely bring gun regulation to a similar level as motor vehicles.
What does it take to make a responsible automobile operator? In the US, to qualify as a responsible automobile operator, you have to have a valid driver’s license. You have to have a car, regularly inspected for condition, with a valid title and registration, and with up-to-date insurance.
What does it take to make a responsible gun owner? In most states, a checkbook, Visa card, or wad of cash. By virtue of being able to buy a gun you are by default considered to be a responsible gun owner.
(I like to point out that until the instant he pulled the trigger, Jared Lee Loughner met every criterion for a Responsible Gun Owner.)
A lot of handgun no longer have safeties.
It is not possible to be certain that no bullet is chambered in semiautomatic pistol if magazine is in place, because the act of checking the chamber loads zzz bullet.
It is not possible in a. Revolver to be sure that a bullet is not chambered unless one chamber is left empty and you look straight at the front of gun.
opposablethumbs (50):
Unfortunately, people like this seem more likely to shoot someone else than to qualify for a Darwin.
It is quite common for automatics to have a Chambered Round indicator – it is usually part of the extractor mechanism and protrudes when a round is chambered, sometimes with a bit of red paint exposed to illustrate the danger.
Buh..?
I’m not a gun guy… but surely, checking if a bullet would be chambered in a revolver is achieved the same way as checking if it is loaded: by opening the cylinder?
For 64. Every revolver I have ever shot rotates the cylinder when you pull the trigger, so the bullet that appears to be in firing position is not the one that will fire. It is the round in the next chamber, depending on the gun next clockwise or counterclockwise. Closing the cylinder is not necessarily an exact science. You are back to looking diectly into the front of the gun and trying to remember which way thy cylinder rotates.
cactuswren, #60
Quite a convenient little system that they’ve set up, isn’t it? Simply define “irresponsible gun owner” as someone who intentionally or unintentionally shoots someone not in self-defense. Tada!
I don’t understand this at all. There are two reasons to make sure there’s no round chambered:
1. You want a round chambered so you can shoot.
2. You don’t want a round chambered because you want to ensure safety.
In case 1, you can check by working the mechanism, ensuring that a round is now chambered.
In case 2, you first remove the magazine, then when you work the mechanism, if there’s no chambered round you will see that, if there is a chambered round, you will have ejected it, there is now no round chambered. If you still for some reason want the gun loaded, you now reload the magazine and you have a loaded gun with no round chambered. Easy peasy. If you’re not going to use the gun in short order, however, you ought to leave the magazine out.
Or in the case of a revolver, you’ll forgive my ignorance as I’ve never used a revolver, but if you open the cylinder and take out all the bullets, then you won’t have a round chambered, easy peasy. Again, you can reload if you need to, leaving the appropriate slot empty.
Why is this impossible?
From the perspective of the UK, the “gun control” debate in the USA seems flatly unbelievable. In the UK I have quite literally only ever seen guns in the hands of police officers, and even then, only ever police officers at airports. The police here are, in the normal course of things, unarmed.
Yeah, I know, check my privilege; I consider myself extremely privileged in this regard.
Correction: police officers at airports and soldiers at Buckingham Palace.
call me mark
You an’ me both. it seems almost alien to me, the thought that a “liberal” outlook on fire-arms availability can consist of not wanting automatic weapons, and wondering if licensing might be a spiffing idea.
(Also, nice gravatar…)
You know, perhaps there are responsible gun owners. I’ve known a few that would meet that definition. My father owned guns and raised me to have a natural fear of them. I never once even wanted to approach his “gun closet”, and the one time my little brother tried to “show off” my dad’s collection to a weasaly little friend of his (swearing up and down later he just wanted to SHOW them), my dad basically put such a fear into him about it, painting pictures of horrible accidents that even his fibreglass bow and arrow set could do, that he never did that again. He got a BB gun at one point, having my siblings and I use it way out in a special “range” outside of town, saying that there was “no chance” he’d ever buy one of us anything more powerful than that, even when we were older, and that if I “wanted” anything more powerful, it was up to me to decide to buy it myself when I was an adult (this speech, by the way, wasn’t really necessary, as I never actually wanted to own a gun anyway, although my brother did). Even then, he got the look of an angry god whenever any of us made even the slightest error in gun safety (the safety thing was the only thing that got him looking like that, he really didn’t mind so much if our marksmanship wasn’t up to snuff). To anyone who thinks corporal punishment is a necessity, I assure you that a withering look and a “very disappointed” speech can do WONDERS if you really look up to your dad, no violence required. So there it is, I recall that the first day out on one of these ranges involved no ammunition, just safety lessons like “always assume a gun is loaded, and the barrel should always be pointed straight up, never point it at a person because that’s as good as killing them”.
Yeah, I can believe that these mythical “responsible gun owners” exist, because my dad was actually one of them, and such safety concerns were very VERY clearly top priority on his mind. For that, he has my respect and always will. Every time I see some story about not just any gun accident, but one caused by a parent putting a gun in a baby’s hands for a “cute photo”, my “you ignorant… why, just why, just WHY WOULD YOU EVER?!” rage basically explodes, because on top of never wanting to own a gun myself, an actual gun owner with safety training made me fear them even more, and made me familiar with safety, so it’s like a whole new level.
But, in spite of all of that, and I hope you read this far because this is the 180 (well, maybe more like 70 or so), there’s still one very important point. All these stories have convinced me that whether or not my OWN father was safe with guns and made such safety a priority DON’T MATTER. There are FAR too many out there that don’t see guns that way, but rather as “totally safe tools”. They took the “if you are fearful and respectful of basic safety at ALL times without exception and instill that in your children, you shouldn’t get hurt” notion, and cut it down to “you shouldn’t get hurt” without any of the work that goes into it. Frankly, had I, my dad, and my brother’s sense of fear of consequences not intervened, that dumb neighbor’s kid could have easily created a tragedy, and these sorts of things can, and do, happen SO often that it’s basically inevitable so long as there are gun owners, no matter how sensible a few might be in their personal handling.
In summary: Some people really can be safe and properly fearful of that power. I don’t think that’s enough to justify the simple fact that most gun owners just treat them like any other thing they own and a LOT of people are going to get hurt by those who treat them as a way to solve disputes besides. Sorry responsible gun owners, but the irresponsible and the malicious really have ruined things for the rest of the class.
….why are guns sold without safeties?
Re that…I was just reading up on pocket pistols for a fanfic (!!) and single action revolvers usually don’t. It’s also common to have notches between the live cylinders, thus getting rid of the cowboy problem (i.e. not wanting a live round under the hammer). The theory is that two things have to happen; a full cock of the hammer (which will also turn the cylinder) and then a pull of the trigger. In the cast of the NAA “Black Widow” I was reading up on, though, there is also no trigger guard. And that series are specifically designed to be worn tucked in a pocket or waistband. Is there an arachnid that eats ITSELF after mating?
Why do you hate freedom?!!!!
If I want to literally shoot myself in the foot, that’s my right!
The NRA’s lobbying arm (NRA-ILA) routinely opposes any restrictions on licensing for firearms: Wayne LaPierre believes that it is very important that incompetent, untrained people who have taken no gun safety courses have ready access to deadly firearms.
This despite the fact that the NRA is actually the primary provider of gun safety courses, and would stand to make a lot of money and get a lot of members. The NRA leadership isn’t even working in their own organization’s interest.
The question has been raised of whose interest they are working in, and the most coherent answer is the gun and ammunition manufacturers. They’re a marketing lobby for the manufacturers. If the NRA were working for the drug companies, they’d be lobbying to allow heroin to be advertised as a treatment for the common cold, and sold over the counter; but instead they are working for the gun manufacturers.