Gun Legislation

[O Really]

Using that fire extinguisher, even for sport, would hardly ever endanger others, either.

[Seth Milner]

Using that fire extinguisher, even for sport, would hardly ever endanger others, either.

Neither would a handgun; properly holstered or in the possession of someone trained in it's use. You stated you have a concealed carry; was it just handed to you, or did you have to earn it? Earning it meant you had to be trained in it's use and safety for yourself (legally and physically) and safety around others; so what's your point? BTW, you CAN endanger others with a fire extinguisher.

[rstrong]

Of course your fire extinguisher comparison is valid only if having a fire extinguisher makes fires - and you dying in a fire - far more likely to happen.

You want to explain that gibberish? How does having a gun create violence against you as compared to your extinguisher making fires? (I'm speaking of handguns, not assault weapons)

Sorry; I forgot about your consistent lack of even an elementary understanding of the things you mindlessly re-post here.

It's been shown over and over and over that the more armed a population is, the more likely they are to die from gun violence. As just one of many examples, handguns are available for self protection in Seattle but not in nearby Vancouver, Canada. The result is that handgun killings are five times more common and the handgun suicide rate is ten times greater in Seattle.

No such similar circumstances have been found with fire extinguishers. Having them around doesn't make your house MORE likely to burn down. Carrying one around doesn't make you MORE likely to die in a fire. There isn't a steady stream of children killed by fire extinguishers or people killed by children with easy access fire extinguishers. There would have to be all of this for your comparison to be valid.

[Vrede too]

To be fair, I bruised a toe pretty good once when I dropped a fire extinguisher. It could have been broken!

[O Really]

Using that fire extinguisher, even for sport, would hardly ever endanger others, either.

Neither would a handgun; properly holstered or in the possession of someone trained in it's use. You stated you have a concealed carry; was it just handed to you, or did you have to earn it? Earning it meant you had to be trained in it's use and safety for yourself (legally and physically) and safety around others; so what's your point? BTW, you CAN endanger others with a fire extinguisher.

Well, see, that's the problem. There isn't any real training requirement. I was interested in learning something worthwhile in home and self-defense and got training well beyond the joke required for a permit/license. Lots of people who have taken the required "training" end up shooting themselves or somebody in their family or get shot by their kid. Of course a "properly holstered" firearm isn't likely to do much harm, and neither is one in a locked storage cabinet, but that's not what everybody does with them. Anyway, if you still like your analogy, stand five feet away from a person holding both and decide if you'd prefer being shot with the fire extinguisher or the firearm.

[Seth Milner]

To be fair, I bruised a toe pretty good once when I dropped a fire extinguisher. It could have been broken!

klutz

[rstrong]

Using that fire extinguisher, even for sport, would hardly ever endanger others, either.

You stated you have a concealed carry; was it just handed to you, or did you have to earn it? Earning it meant you had to be trained in it's use and safety for yourself (legally and physically) and safety around others;

Funny you should mention that. Last week the Daily Show sent one of their folks to get a concealed carry license.

"Training" meant hands-on instruction with a plastic training gun, then filling in a three page multiple-choice form immediately after. ("True of False: ALWAYS keep your gun pointed in a safe direction.") (Yes, that's one of the actual questions on the NRA exam.) And then firing a few shots in a range - just once, ten shots total. TA DA!!! From novice to license "earned", "trained in it's use and safety for yourself (legally and physically) and safety around others" - in one afternoon.

You could use that training as an easy warm-up for a bicycle safety course.

[Seth Milner]

Well, see, that's the problem. There isn't any real training requirement. I was interested in learning something worthwhile in home and self-defense and got training well beyond the joke required for a permit/license. Lots of people who have taken the required "training" end up shooting themselves or somebody in their family or get shot by their kid. Of course a "properly holstered" firearm isn't likely to do much harm, and neither is one in a locked storage cabinet, but that's not what everybody does with them. Anyway, if you still like your analogy, stand five feet away from a person holding both and decide if you'd prefer being shot with the fire extinguisher or the firearm.

Well, see, there's yours and other anti-gun nuts' problem. You only see the deaths that have, or might, occur from gun ownership. You don't won't to consider the number of lives saved or sexual assaults prevented by gun ownership. Was your gun training a joke? Of course people shoot themselves; so do trained officers and trained military; and innocents have been shot; accidents happen. . . that doesn't mean that every gun owner is or is going to be a menace to him/herself and society. Just as there are screamers for gun rights, there are screamers to ban guns; it's like the saying about opinions.

[Seth Milner]

Sorry; I forgot about your consistent lack of even an elementary understanding of the things you mindlessly re-post here.
I've got good examples to follow.

It's been shown over and over and over that the more armed a population is, the more likely they are to die from gun violence. As just one of many examples, handguns are available for self protection in Seattle but not in nearby Vancouver, Canada. The result is that handgun killings are five times more common and the handgun suicide rate is ten times greater in Seattle.
"more likely" That's Seattle and Vancouver; that's not everywhere. Alaska has a high suicide rate too; that's Alaska.

No such similar circumstances have been found with fire extinguishers. Having them around doesn't make your house MORE likely to burn down. Carrying one around doesn't make you MORE likely to die in a fire. There isn't a steady stream of children killed by fire extinguishers or people killed by children with easy access fire extinguishers. There would have to be all of this for your comparison to be valid.
There's not a "steady stream" of children being killed by firearms either. Yes, kids and adults die from GSW's; that's undeniable; but kids and adults die in auto accidents too. People get charged for gun deaths; people get charged for auto deaths.

[Seth Milner]

Using that fire extinguisher, even for sport, would hardly ever endanger others, either.

You stated you have a concealed carry; was it just handed to you, or did you have to earn it? Earning it meant you had to be trained in it's use and safety for yourself (legally and physically) and safety around others;

Funny you should mention that. Last week the Daily Show sent one of their folks to get a concealed carry license.

"Training" meant hands-on instruction with a plastic training gun, then filling in a three page multiple-choice form immediately after. ("True of False: ALWAYS keep your gun pointed in a safe direction.") (Yes, that's one of the actual questions on the NRA exam.) And then firing a few shots in a range - just once, ten shots total. TA DA!!! From novice to license "earned", "trained in it's use and safety for yourself (legally and physically) and safety around others" - in one afternoon.

You could use that training as an easy warm-up for a bicycle safety course.

Yeah, well, maybe in Canada and wherever they went to get their concealed carry. My questions weren't multiple choice, and to keep my CCL, permit, license, CWC, or whatever Something Left wants to call it, I have to re-qualify yearly, whereas generally most states only require a one time qualifying, and most PD's and other LEO's have varying schedules. I'm happy with that.

[Vrede too]

... Anyway, if you still like your analogy, stand five feet away from a person holding both and decide if you'd prefer being shot with the fire extinguisher or the firearm.

Or, which one would you feel safer holding if angry, depressed, drunk, etc.?

[Seth Milner]

removed duplicated post

[Seth Milner]

... Anyway, if you still like your analogy, stand five feet away from a person holding both and decide if you'd prefer being shot with the fire extinguisher or the firearm.

I don't really have a preference for either.
Or, which one would you feel safer holding if angry, depressed, drunk, etc.?
Well, I drink only at home; I now live alone; if I get angry or depressed, I imagine I would go throw a line in the water.

[rstrong]

You don't won't to consider the number of lives saved or sexual assaults prevented by gun ownership.

The number of lives taken far outnumbers the number of lives saved. No doubt the number of rapes enabled by guns outnumbers those prevented.

That's not being anti-gun BTW. It's just being honest.

Just as there are screamers for gun rights, there are screamers to ban guns; it's like the saying about opinions.

There you are again with your goddamned stupid binary choice.

One more time: No-one is trying to ban your guns. Obama makes even Ronald Reagan look anti-gun.

Instead your "screamers" are screaming for some basic gun responsibility, the sort that the NRA stood for just a few decades ago. REAL training. REAL penalties for leaving your gun laying around on the table where the kids can shoot each other with it. Penalties for using one in a robbery, more serious than for pot possession. Criminal and mental illness background checks.

We're talking about policies the NRA called for so recently that if was the *CURRENT* NRA leader calling for them. But which in the last couple decades have been labeled by the Republican Party - the NRA now just a propaganda arm - as akin to banning guns.

And that just sums up the SHEER DISHONEST WINGNUTTYNESS of your posts. Anyone who calls for the very training and safety measures you seem to think are normal, are the ones you call "anti-gun", "gun-banners" and "screamers."

[rstrong]

Yeah, well, maybe in Canada and wherever they went to get their concealed carry. My questions weren't multiple choice, and to keep my CCL, permit, license, CWC, or whatever Something Left wants to call it, I have to re-qualify yearly, whereas generally most states only require a one time qualifying, and most PD's and other LEO's have varying schedules.

Not Canada. That's anywhere in the US.

Or to be more precise, *MOST* US states. But if you're in one of the OTHER states, all you need in the quick NRA one-day certificate course described above. Yes, multiple choice. And then you can get your CCL through the mail from Florida.

[O Really]

Well, see, there's yours and other anti-gun nuts' problem. You only see the deaths that have, or might, occur from gun ownership. You don't won't to consider the number of lives saved or sexual assaults prevented by gun ownership. Was your gun training a joke? Of course people shoot themselves; so do trained officers and trained military; and innocents have been shot; accidents happen. . . that doesn't mean that every gun owner is or is going to be a menace to him/herself and society. Just as there are screamers for gun rights, there are screamers to ban guns; it's like the saying about opinions.

I'm not anti-gun. I'm in favor of mandatory real training, registration, licensing for all firearms (not just concealed) and holding those legally accountable who are negligent in the use of their firearm. None of that prevents most non-criminals from owning and using a firearm. Sure accidents happen. But most gun "accidents" are from human negligence. Don't you remember that "guns don't kill people?" If you leave your firearm where your kid can get to it, you ought to be criminally charged.
I carry a Florida permit, good in most states, and the required training was pretty much as rstrong described, except that a total of 50 shots is required.
You take the "NRA" course consisting of an instructor telling you what's going to be on the test and the taking a test that has questions if not exactly the one rstrong mentioned at least similar is simplicity. A few hours, 50 shots, $80 bucks and a fingerprinting and ta-daaaa! You are "trained." Right.

[Vrede too]

... You don't won't to consider the number of lives saved or sexual assaults prevented by gun ownership....

The number of lives taken far outnumbers the number of lives saved. No doubt the number of rapes enabled by guns outnumbers those prevented.

That's not being anti-gun BTW. It's just being honest....

Seth Milner is being dumb or dishonest, as usual.

When homes that have guns see more violence, that necessarily takes into account any supposed violence prevented.
When states that have more guns and/or laxer laws see more violence, that necessarily takes into account any supposed violence prevented.
When comparable nations that have more guns and/or laxer laws see more violence, that necessarily takes into account any supposed violence prevented.

In complete contrast, as has been posted, the presence of fire extinguishers in a home, public facility or business reduces the odds of injury or death.

Seth Milner can screech all he wants that "his" compensations are worth the violence, but denying that there's more violence just proves how irresponsible gunhuggers like "him" are.

[Vrede too]

Belated congrats on your thread passing 100 pages, O Really. It's an exclusive club. God, gays and guns, with Big Brother being the next closest at 69 pages. We're an all American forum.

Weird thing I just noticed - that ranking also holds for view tallies except that The Worker Thread with its lowly 5 pages of replies leads the next closest The Religion Thread in views 167,929 to 55,210. :-0?>

[O Really]

A better analogy than the fire extinguisher would be drunk drivers. Cars don't kill people - people do. And while sober people can have accidents, it's the drunk drivers that cause the most (and most preventable) problems. So a couple of decades ago, due largely to federal highway funding requirements, states started taking the legal limit down from .10 to .08. They increased penalties for drunk driving. They started propaganda campaigns against it. They started "designated driver" programs and advertisers tried to make being a dd something good, if not actually fun. Drive-throughs at the liquor stores in Florida (for example) got closed, along with the daiquiri stands in Louisiana. Laws changed from being legal to drive while drinking (as long as you weren't drunk) to "open container" restrictions.

What happened? Well, some people still drive drunk, but not nearly as many. People still have accidents, but the number is way down from what it was. Nobody who is not an offender or a high risk from previous offenses is denied ownership of a car or unduly restricted in its use.

The Second Amendment doesn't provide an absolute right to ownership and use of any firearm or any type by anyone anywhere (according to the Supremes), and treating firearms similar to cars wouldn't infringe on the rights provided. You and I still keep our firearms and remain fully capable of defending the ol' homestead from the after-storm looters or the zombies.

[Seth Milner]

You don't won't to consider the number of lives saved or sexual assaults prevented by gun ownership.

The number of lives taken far outnumbers the number of lives saved. No doubt the number of rapes enabled by guns outnumbers those prevented.
Because the number of lives saved is not a newsworthy item; therefore you don't hear about them as much.

That's not being anti-gun BTW. It's just being honest.
So am I.

Just as there are screamers for gun rights, there are screamers to ban guns; it's like the saying about opinions.

There you are again with your goddamned stupid binary choice.
Because everyone has an opinion on guns? Your denial and narrow-mindedness is what's "goddamned stupid".

One more time: No-one is trying to ban your guns. Obama makes even Ronald Reagan look anti-gun.
I'm not concerned that anyone is trying to ban my gun, or regulate it. I don't give a rats ass about Obama or the late Mr. Reagan's opinions. . .or yours. Spew and spit all you like; I'm enjoying your asinine stupidity and raging spewing.

Instead your "screamers" are screaming for some basic gun responsibility, the sort that the NRA stood for just a few decades ago. REAL training. REAL penalties for leaving your gun laying around on the table where the kids can shoot each other with it. Penalties for using one in a robbery, more serious than for pot possession. Criminal and mental illness background checks.
I agree with that; however there are REAL penalties for carelessness; there are REAL penalties for poor decisions and improper gun usage. Each state has differing requirements for licensing; and as far as I know, each state does background checks.

We're talking about policies the NRA called for so recently that if was the *CURRENT* NRA leader calling for them. But which in the last couple decades have been labeled by the Republican Party - the NRA now just a propaganda arm - as akin to banning guns.
Oh yeah, that NRA whine again.

And that just sums up the SHEER DISHONEST WINGNUTTYNESS of your posts. Anyone who calls for the very training and safety measures you seem to think are normal, are the ones you call "anti-gun", "gun-banners" and "screamers."
"DISHONEST". . . Now you're parroting Vrede too. How do you deem my opinions as "dishonest", and what makes you think I support "the very training and safety measures....are normal" ?