Stupid people do stupid things with guns

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:72 year old tied up in home invasion robbery; manages to get free, and uses a a gun to stop intruders

http://www.kptv.com/story/30093202/sheriff-72-year-old-man-tied-up-in-home-invasion-gets-free-grabs-gun

Shame on him! He never should have had a gun! Both of those younger women might have been shot or even killed!

Uses A gun, not HIS gun. It appears that he freed his hands and grabbed a gun that one of his captors left out.

Isn't it great? He survived due to his quick thinking! Probably should have left the gun to the home invaders, right?

My guess is he's going to purchase a firearm...

How would the kind of reasonable gun regulations being proposed by most on the "gun control" side of things have prevented this man from gaining access to the weapon in his situation? How would such regulations prevent him from getting and keeping a weapon now, should he choose to? Unless you can answer that, your counter example is irrelevant.

What evidence is there that these dimwits were going to kill Papa Smurf?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes because when The Liberal Kills a woman it's totally fine.

No, because when something happens to harm someone with pretty much any device besides a gun there is an investigation into how to make the device safer and whether we need to change laws/regulations to decrease the likelihood of something like that happening, again.

That's how we ended up with, for example, mandatory seat belt laws and a host of other car safety features as well as laws against drunk driving.

On the other hand, when gun owners do something stupid, we get, "Stuff happens. No law could've prevented it," instead of any kind of thoughtful analysis of how such incidents could be prevented through modifications to guns and/or gun-related regulations.

And when some idiot goes on a Rambo rampage, we get, "Stuff happens. The only thing that could stop something like this is a good guy with a gun. If it had been me I would've rushed the guy. It's a shame we don't focus more resources on helping the mentally ill," after which the Republican lawmaker who has never been in any life threatening situation goes to the floor and votes for yet another budget cut to the social safety net and systems that could actually provide mental health care.

[Anonymous]

Stupid pastor uses a a gun! - defends himself from hammer and brick-wielding attacker:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/19/pastor-shoots-brick-wielding-man-in-detroit-cops-say/

-doesn't he understand he should have just turned the other cheek as the attacker crushed his skull with a hammer? How DARE he defend himself??!?

Clearly guns must be banned right now!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes because when The Liberal Kills a woman it's totally fine.

No, because when something happens to harm someone with pretty much any device besides a gun there is an investigation into how to make the device safer and whether we need to change laws/regulations to decrease the likelihood of something like that happening, again.

That's how we ended up with, for example, mandatory seat belt laws and a host of other car safety features as well as laws against drunk driving.

On the other hand, when gun owners do something stupid, we get, "Stuff happens. No law could've prevented it," instead of any kind of thoughtful analysis of how such incidents could be prevented through modifications to guns and/or gun-related regulations.

And when some idiot goes on a Rambo rampage, we get, "Stuff happens. The only thing that could stop something like this is a good guy with a gun. If it had been me I would've rushed the guy. It's a shame we don't focus more resources on helping the mentally ill," after which the Republican lawmaker who has never been in any life threatening situation goes to the floor and votes for yet another budget cut to the social safety net and systems that could actually provide mental health care.

Firearms go through the same type of continuous safety improvements that cars do. Do you really think firearms today have the same safety features as guns made in the 1800's? There have been many improvements over the years to prevent both catastrophic failure and inadvertent firings. And those type of improvements continue today with smart guns or personalized guns being the latest technological safety features being developed.
The ATF and SAAMI are the two main regulating agencies. Please see their sites if you want to learn more.
ATF - https://www.atf.gov/firearms
SAAMI - http://www.saami.org

Here's a list of various firearm safety features
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_%28firearms%29

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes because when The Liberal Kills a woman it's totally fine.

No, because when something happens to harm someone with pretty much any device besides a gun there is an investigation into how to make the device safer and whether we need to change laws/regulations to decrease the likelihood of something like that happening, again.

That's how we ended up with, for example, mandatory seat belt laws and a host of other car safety features as well as laws against drunk driving.

On the other hand, when gun owners do something stupid, we get, "Stuff happens. No law could've prevented it," instead of any kind of thoughtful analysis of how such incidents could be prevented through modifications to guns and/or gun-related regulations.

And when some idiot goes on a Rambo rampage, we get, "Stuff happens. The only thing that could stop something like this is a good guy with a gun. If it had been me I would've rushed the guy. It's a shame we don't focus more resources on helping the mentally ill," after which the Republican lawmaker who has never been in any life threatening situation goes to the floor and votes for yet another budget cut to the social safety net and systems that could actually provide mental health care.

Firearms go through the same type of continuous safety improvements that cars do. Do you really think firearms today have the same safety features as guns made in the 1800's? There have been many improvements over the years to prevent both catastrophic failure and inadvertent firings. And those type of improvements continue today with smart guns or personalized guns being the latest technological safety features being developed.
The ATF and SAAMI are the two main regulating agencies. Please see their sites if you want to learn more.
ATF - https://www.atf.gov/firearms
SAAMI - http://www.saami.org

Here's a list of various firearm safety features
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_%28firearms%29

Uh, what are the odds that someone accidentally shoots themselves or their family with a civil war era musket?

And as for the smart gun thing, I believe that is what the NRA actively opposes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes because when The Liberal Kills a woman it's totally fine.

No, because when something happens to harm someone with pretty much any device besides a gun there is an investigation into how to make the device safer and whether we need to change laws/regulations to decrease the likelihood of something like that happening, again.

That's how we ended up with, for example, mandatory seat belt laws and a host of other car safety features as well as laws against drunk driving.

On the other hand, when gun owners do something stupid, we get, "Stuff happens. No law could've prevented it," instead of any kind of thoughtful analysis of how such incidents could be prevented through modifications to guns and/or gun-related regulations.

And when some idiot goes on a Rambo rampage, we get, "Stuff happens. The only thing that could stop something like this is a good guy with a gun. If it had been me I would've rushed the guy. It's a shame we don't focus more resources on helping the mentally ill," after which the Republican lawmaker who has never been in any life threatening situation goes to the floor and votes for yet another budget cut to the social safety net and systems that could actually provide mental health care.

Firearms go through the same type of continuous safety improvements that cars do. Do you really think firearms today have the same safety features as guns made in the 1800's? There have been many improvements over the years to prevent both catastrophic failure and inadvertent firings. And those type of improvements continue today with smart guns or personalized guns being the latest technological safety features being developed.
The ATF and SAAMI are the two main regulating agencies. Please see their sites if you want to learn more.
ATF - https://www.atf.gov/firearms
SAAMI - http://www.saami.org

Here's a list of various firearm safety features
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_%28firearms%29

Uh, what are the odds that someone accidentally shoots themselves or their family with a civil war era musket?

And as for the smart gun thing, I believe that is what the NRA actively opposes.

If they are actively using it the odds of a catastrophic failure would be much higher than a modern firearm. The odds of injury from powder burns would be extremely higher. Assuming the civil war era musket is loaded and ready to fire, the odds of inadvertently firing it would be higher than inadvertently firing a modern loaded firearm. The musket would have no pin/fire safety feature and no trigger pressure regulations. The musket could go off accidentally far easier. Is this not easily understood by you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes because when The Liberal Kills a woman it's totally fine.

No, because when something happens to harm someone with pretty much any device besides a gun there is an investigation into how to make the device safer and whether we need to change laws/regulations to decrease the likelihood of something like that happening, again.

That's how we ended up with, for example, mandatory seat belt laws and a host of other car safety features as well as laws against drunk driving.

On the other hand, when gun owners do something stupid, we get, "Stuff happens. No law could've prevented it," instead of any kind of thoughtful analysis of how such incidents could be prevented through modifications to guns and/or gun-related regulations.

And when some idiot goes on a Rambo rampage, we get, "Stuff happens. The only thing that could stop something like this is a good guy with a gun. If it had been me I would've rushed the guy. It's a shame we don't focus more resources on helping the mentally ill," after which the Republican lawmaker who has never been in any life threatening situation goes to the floor and votes for yet another budget cut to the social safety net and systems that could actually provide mental health care.

Firearms go through the same type of continuous safety improvements that cars do. Do you really think firearms today have the same safety features as guns made in the 1800's? There have been many improvements over the years to prevent both catastrophic failure and inadvertent firings. And those type of improvements continue today with smart guns or personalized guns being the latest technological safety features being developed.
The ATF and SAAMI are the two main regulating agencies. Please see their sites if you want to learn more.
ATF - https://www.atf.gov/firearms
SAAMI - http://www.saami.org

Here's a list of various firearm safety features
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_%28firearms%29

Uh, what are the odds that someone accidentally shoots themselves or their family with a civil war era musket?

And as for the smart gun thing, I believe that is what the NRA actively opposes.

If they are actively using it the odds of a catastrophic failure would be much higher than a modern firearm. The odds of injury from powder burns would be extremely higher. Assuming the civil war era musket is loaded and ready to fire, the odds of inadvertently firing it would be higher than inadvertently firing a modern loaded firearm. The musket would have no pin/fire safety feature and no trigger pressure regulations. The musket could go off accidentally far easier. Is this not easily understood by you?

I know that loading a musket is a multistep process, that the hammer has to be pulled back and a firing cap has to be placed on the gun and is clearly visible. It is also a long gun. This makes it exceedingly unlikely that some toddler shoots his grandma in the back, or that someone mishandling the weapon accidentally fires and shoots someone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes because when The Liberal Kills a woman it's totally fine.

No, because when something happens to harm someone with pretty much any device besides a gun there is an investigation into how to make the device safer and whether we need to change laws/regulations to decrease the likelihood of something like that happening, again.

That's how we ended up with, for example, mandatory seat belt laws and a host of other car safety features as well as laws against drunk driving.

On the other hand, when gun owners do something stupid, we get, "Stuff happens. No law could've prevented it," instead of any kind of thoughtful analysis of how such incidents could be prevented through modifications to guns and/or gun-related regulations.

And when some idiot goes on a Rambo rampage, we get, "Stuff happens. The only thing that could stop something like this is a good guy with a gun. If it had been me I would've rushed the guy. It's a shame we don't focus more resources on helping the mentally ill," after which the Republican lawmaker who has never been in any life threatening situation goes to the floor and votes for yet another budget cut to the social safety net and systems that could actually provide mental health care.

Firearms go through the same type of continuous safety improvements that cars do. Do you really think firearms today have the same safety features as guns made in the 1800's? There have been many improvements over the years to prevent both catastrophic failure and inadvertent firings. And those type of improvements continue today with smart guns or personalized guns being the latest technological safety features being developed.
The ATF and SAAMI are the two main regulating agencies. Please see their sites if you want to learn more.
ATF - https://www.atf.gov/firearms
SAAMI - http://www.saami.org

Here's a list of various firearm safety features
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_%28firearms%29

Uh, what are the odds that someone accidentally shoots themselves or their family with a civil war era musket?

And as for the smart gun thing, I believe that is what the NRA actively opposes.

If they are actively using it the odds of a catastrophic failure would be much higher than a modern firearm. The odds of injury from powder burns would be extremely higher. Assuming the civil war era musket is loaded and ready to fire, the odds of inadvertently firing it would be higher than inadvertently firing a modern loaded firearm. The musket would have no pin/fire safety feature and no trigger pressure regulations. The musket could go off accidentally far easier. Is this not easily understood by you?

I know that loading a musket is a multistep process, that the hammer has to be pulled back and a firing cap has to be placed on the gun and is clearly visible. It is also a long gun. This makes it exceedingly unlikely that some toddler shoots his grandma in the back, or that someone mishandling the weapon accidentally fires and shoots someone.

Well it would depend on if it was a flintlock or percussion cap musket. Either way I'd say just the fact that black powder is lying around is more dangerous to a toddler. They wouldn't even need to load the musket to kill or injure themselves. Modern single shot firearms typically also requiring pulling the hammer back. But unlike a musket, today's hammers have safety features requiring they be pulled back to the proper notch before they will fire. Today's long rifles would be just as hard to handle for a toddler as far as size and weight goes. But I would say the loading process of a modern gun would be easier. But even a modern firearm would be hard for a toddler to load. But regardless, I don't think anyone doing an unbiased safety comparison between a musket and a modern long rifle would claim the musket is safer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes because when The Liberal Kills a woman it's totally fine.

No, because when something happens to harm someone with pretty much any device besides a gun there is an investigation into how to make the device safer and whether we need to change laws/regulations to decrease the likelihood of something like that happening, again.

That's how we ended up with, for example, mandatory seat belt laws and a host of other car safety features as well as laws against drunk driving.

On the other hand, when gun owners do something stupid, we get, "Stuff happens. No law could've prevented it," instead of any kind of thoughtful analysis of how such incidents could be prevented through modifications to guns and/or gun-related regulations.

And when some idiot goes on a Rambo rampage, we get, "Stuff happens. The only thing that could stop something like this is a good guy with a gun. If it had been me I would've rushed the guy. It's a shame we don't focus more resources on helping the mentally ill," after which the Republican lawmaker who has never been in any life threatening situation goes to the floor and votes for yet another budget cut to the social safety net and systems that could actually provide mental health care.

Firearms go through the same type of continuous safety improvements that cars do. Do you really think firearms today have the same safety features as guns made in the 1800's? There have been many improvements over the years to prevent both catastrophic failure and inadvertent firings. And those type of improvements continue today with smart guns or personalized guns being the latest technological safety features being developed.
The ATF and SAAMI are the two main regulating agencies. Please see their sites if you want to learn more.
ATF - https://www.atf.gov/firearms
SAAMI - http://www.saami.org

Here's a list of various firearm safety features
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_%28firearms%29

Uh, what are the odds that someone accidentally shoots themselves or their family with a civil war era musket?

And as for the smart gun thing, I believe that is what the NRA actively opposes.

If they are actively using it the odds of a catastrophic failure would be much higher than a modern firearm. The odds of injury from powder burns would be extremely higher. Assuming the civil war era musket is loaded and ready to fire, the odds of inadvertently firing it would be higher than inadvertently firing a modern loaded firearm. The musket would have no pin/fire safety feature and no trigger pressure regulations. The musket could go off accidentally far easier. Is this not easily understood by you?

I know that loading a musket is a multistep process, that the hammer has to be pulled back and a firing cap has to be placed on the gun and is clearly visible. It is also a long gun. This makes it exceedingly unlikely that some toddler shoots his grandma in the back, or that someone mishandling the weapon accidentally fires and shoots someone.

Well it would depend on if it was a flintlock or percussion cap musket. Either way I'd say just the fact that black powder is lying around is more dangerous to a toddler. They wouldn't even need to load the musket to kill or injure themselves. Modern single shot firearms typically also requiring pulling the hammer back. But unlike a musket, today's hammers have safety features requiring they be pulled back to the proper notch before they will fire. Today's long rifles would be just as hard to handle for a toddler as far as size and weight goes. But I would say the loading process of a modern gun would be easier. But even a modern firearm would be hard for a toddler to load. But regardless, I don't think anyone doing an unbiased safety comparison between a musket and a modern long rifle would claim the musket is safer.

The proper comparison is a toddler holding a musket vs. a loaded 9 mm handgun. That is the real life situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The proper comparison is a toddler holding a musket vs. a loaded 9 mm handgun. That is the real life situation.

Actually the proper comparison to a 9 mm handgun would be a black powder pistol like this
istolet-IMG_3196-b.jpg" border="0" class="embeddedImage" />

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The proper comparison is a toddler holding a musket vs. a loaded 9 mm handgun. That is the real life situation.

Actually the proper comparison to a 9 mm handgun would be a black powder pistol like this
istolet-IMG_3196-b.jpg" border="0" class="embeddedImage" />

Let's try that again

[Anonymous]

In fact toddlers can injure their parents with handguns. Here are two stories I got from googling "todder gun":

toddler kills mom at walmart:
http://www.guns.com/2014/12/30/toddler-fatally-shoots-mom-inside-walmart-with-her-carry-gun/


toddler wounds both parents:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/01/toddler-gun_n_6588900.html

[Anonymous]

Thank goodness for all those safety features.

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/the-toll-gun-violence-children

Twice as many children die from gunshot wounds as cancer. Stuff happens don't ya know.

[Anonymous]

Safety first.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GUN_FALLS_CHILD_KILLED?SITE=NELIN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[Anonymous]

Essential reading.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2014/06/gun_deaths_in_children_statistics_show_firearms_endanger_kids_despite_nra.html