www.ditl.org

thelordharry wrote:Speaking of guns and the gun debate, did they ever have to prise the gun from Charlton Heston's cold, dead hands?

Tyyr wrote:I'm not being obtuse. I get what you're saying, however I want some proof that you're talking about a "real" risk. My kids running around with a metal toy held in the air probably increases their risk of being struck by lightning on any given day but I don't take their metal toys away because it's not a '"real" risk. It's something that is so unlikely to happen that getting uptight about it is just ridiculous.

The odds of someone owning a gun, having it AD, having that errant round leave the gun owners house, having the round leave with enough velocity to do damage, and then have the path of that round intersect a person... I don't even know how to quantify those kind of odds. If the guy likes to wave the guns around and fire them off into the air at random, or hand them to neighbor kids to let them get a feel yeah, the guy's an idiot and probably poses an actual risk. However the idea you've put your children at risk by having a gun owner move into the neighborhood is ridiculous.

His point does have merit but like much in the "gun debate", the devil is in the details. What kind of neighbourhood, what kind of firearms? For example the neighbour to my right I wouldn't trust to own a BB gun, he's a drunk and a former crack head. The neighbour to my left is a professional female that commutes to Ottawa every day.

Is the weapon a .32 pistol, a .50 cal rifle or somewhere in between.

And you'll pull this magic trick off how? None of my neighbors know I own a firearm and if the asked I wouldn't answer.

Indeed, tis not something I advertise to the locals.

thelordharry wrote:Speaking of guns and the gun debate, did they ever have to prise the gun from Charlton Heston's cold, dead hands?

Dude, you're about a year too late with those jokes.

I, last year, wrote:Now, if you'll excuse me I'm off to pry that gun out of his cold, dead hands.

The problem with doing that is that no one remembered the atomic bomb in his cold, dead a...

Never mind.

Rochey wrote:

thelordharry wrote:Speaking of guns and the gun debate, did they ever have to prise the gun from Charlton Heston's cold, dead hands?

Dude, you're about a year too late with those jokes.

I, last year, wrote:Now, if you'll excuse me I'm off to pry that gun out of his cold, dead hands.

Damn it, I set an alarm for a year in the future to use that joke again, you know, when everyone had forgetten about it. CURSE YOU, DANGERMOUSE!!!

Cpl Kendall wrote:His point does have merit

I'm not saying that the presence of a gun doesn't bring with it the possibility of an accidental discharge and that that discharge could be dangerous. However, given that the best number I can find is only 650 accidental gun deaths a year in the United States, which includes hunting accidents and accidents while using them, and that the vast majority of injuries due to accidents are to the person who's messing with the gun, I just find it hard to believe that anyone could consider the mere fact that someone in the neighborhood owns a gun is putting their children at any real risk. Car accidents, choking, that sort of thing to me are real risks to my kids. A one in twenty million chance is not something that to me is a real risk as in something to go basing decisions off of.

Additionally, it's just not possible. It's not like you're going to ever be able to live somewhere that there are not going to be guns around you, legal or otherwise. To me that puts this risk into the same realm as something like a lightning strike. An act of god you can't do anything to really prevent.

Indeed, tis not something I advertise to the locals.

For various reasons it's not something smart to do. The most important of which is that it's simply none of their damn business.

Thankfully, I have minimal contact with my neighbors, period.

As to the odds, I'd be much more fearful of bringing my child to a doctor.

Tyyr wrote:

Cpl Kendall wrote:His point does have merit

I'm not saying that the presence of a gun doesn't bring with it the possibility of an accidental discharge and that that discharge could be dangerous. However, given that the best number I can find is only 650 accidental gun deaths a year in the United States, which includes hunting accidents and accidents while using them, and that the vast majority of injuries due to accidents are to the person who's messing with the gun, I just find it hard to believe that anyone could consider the mere fact that someone in the neighborhood owns a gun is putting their children at any real risk. Car accidents, choking, that sort of thing to me are real risks to my kids. A one in twenty million chance is not something that to me is a real risk as in something to go basing decisions off of.

Additionally, it's just not possible. It's not like you're going to ever be able to live somewhere that there are not going to be guns around you, legal or otherwise. To me that puts this risk into the same realm as something like a lightning strike. An act of god you can't do anything to really prevent.

650 a year? That's it? I would have thought it would be much higher, human stupidity being what it is.

For various reasons it's not something smart to do. The most important of which is that it's simply none of their damn business.

True enough.

Cpl Kendall wrote:650 a year? That's it? I would have thought it would be much higher, human stupidity being what it is.

Tyyr appears to be correct; I can't find any higher figures for accidental gun deaths, except for 1999 with 824.

Murders, of course, are a higher figure, seeing how a person can kill another with anything from a knife to a shoehorn, if inclined to do so, and if somewhat capable in combat.

I was as surprised as you were but everywhere I looked kept coming in at right about 650 accidental gun deaths a year which included hunting and range accidents.

Comparing accidental gun fatalities with traffic accidents is like comparing apples to panthers. Gunplay is NOT an everyday part of my life - cars are. Similarly, to use your earlier example, toys are a part of childhood - gunplay, certainly not mine or my kids.

As to the limited number of accidental gun fatalities - who cares if the number is just "one?" Why would I want to expose my kids to any increased risk of getting shot, even it's a small increase?

Anyway, TLH: +1 for the DM reference.

It's not a bad analogy because people around you own guns. Like it or not they do, unless you want to move into the country and live a couple miles from anyone you're just not going to find some place to live where there are no guns around you. If you could choose to live in a gun free area and be sure it was gun free then my analogy would be bad but in the US that's simply not possible. If you live in this country someone in your neighborhood owns a gun, several probably both people and guns.

What if I'm the homeowner and you're the civvie gun fetishist? If I didn't know you, I mean. Let's say some guy moves in next to me and my two kids who keeps both overpressure and Hydrashock ammo onhand "just for... whatever." Am I supposed to feel safe?

No. I think (correctly) that my kids have a greater chance of getting shot with guns in the neighborhood than with no guns in the neighborhood.

You owning a gun is immaterial and not even what we're talking about.

Tyyr wrote:You owning a gun is immaterial and not even what we're talking about.

Yep. Nothing to do with what I was talking about either.

Tsukiyumi wrote:That's why I'm happy to live in the US, and in Texas; everyone can feel free to criticize things that are actually wrong with this country, but I refuse to live anywhere that would deny my fundamental right to protect myself. Cops, in my experience, are generally morons.

You will never find a perfect person or organisation which never makes mistakes and contains no corruption.

Want to be responsible for your own safety? Have at it. But you are just as likely to make mistakes as any cop is, if not more so. And probably statistically just as likely to be corrupt, too.

Now here's where I get all hot under the collar, law enforcement is just that, enforcement. It does not deter crime it prosecutes criminals after the fact, if it did in fact deter crime there would be little to no crime. It is not only my right to defend myself, it is my obligation, my duty to do so. Law enforcement cannot do that for me, just the logistics of having an officer with me twenty-four hours three hundred-sixty five days a year is not possible.