posted on August 8, 2000 08:05:41 PM
With regard to the gun that looked like a toy. I had the opposite trouble.
I was driving last week and a car full of young girls passed on the left. A truck passed on my right and cut across my nose to match speed with the girls and a teenage male in the bed came up with a black Uzi which he was holding wrong and my gut did a major churn and spasm. Just about then he let loose with a big squirt of water from the thing. He has no idea how dangerous that is. If he came up beside me and displayed that I would not
hesitate to jerk the wheel over and plow straight into him with my owm 3800 pound "round" before he could shoot. Almost made me lose my cookies anyway. I expected a noise like a Giant ripping cardboard boxes, not a squirt.
posted on August 8, 2000 09:16:49 PM
krs - that's a good point about number of shots fired. I still don't think the original comparison of statistics is valid, but I do believe that guns are inherently less dangerous than medical procedures. Gun deaths are rarely accidental, while medical deaths usually are.
posted on August 8, 2000 09:31:11 PM
I think that both are accidental in the main.
There are far more accidental shootings than deliberate ones, and those are tragic. Inexperienced people, careless owners, legal and not, hunters, and children die in accidental shootings in fairly alarming rate frequencies.
But those are not crimes, for the most part, while negligence in professionals almost always is deemed criminal.
Very few of the restrictive gun laws proposed and/or enacted address the issue of responsible gun ownership. They do, however provide sure political fodder for the sharks who will do anything to be elected to be able to say "See, John Q., THIS is what I'm doing about gun control" when in fact very little is being done. That endeavor is left to the organized groups such as the NRA and IBA, NBRSA, others, and the individual state associations which have as a primary element in each of their charters the aim to provide for the training for and fostering of safe and lawful gun ownership.
posted on August 8, 2000 11:20:30 PM
>I don't know of anyone in my circle of >acquaintanceship who owns a handgun (or even >a rifle).
I find cultural differences very interesting. Just today I was talking to someone in the UK about similar topics. Where I live I don't know anyone (my whole life) who doesn't own 4 or 5 guns or more. My grandfather was a collector with hundreds that he displayed with historical references. Everyone that I know hunts or at least has at some point in time. I have known of 4 of 5 accidental shootings in my entire life. 2 sadly were boys and were when the parents were not home. Both had a friend over at the time and they were "showing their guns". The other 2 or 3 were hunting accidents involving adults. I have known two people who were murdered. One with a gun and one with a household hammer.
While handguns are often used in crimes here, other guns are rarely used. Most all handgun crimes occur in the inner city. In the more rural areas, there is very little crime besides burglarly when no one is home (and I suppose guns are sometimes stolen) because you KNOW everyone owns a gun. You just do NOT try to bother anyone on their own property. It is accepted...by people and by law enforcement.
During hunting seasons my husband, and many others, carry a gun everyday. The rest of the year he target practices nearly once a week. My 11 year old daughter hunts and is taught firearms safety. I was taught it too as a young girl. I don't hunt..I love to go..I just don't care to kill.
Here is a friends page. He says it better than I, and pictures say more than words perhaps. Sam's Page: http://www2.msstate.edu/~sty1/
(Click the hunting link.)
I know this boy and his family. Everything they kill is eaten or they do not kill. Same with us. Hunting for sport alone is considered in poor taste and frowned upon. Gun safety is taught as commonly as driving.
posted on August 8, 2000 11:34:18 PM
I just click the Buckmasters link from Sam's page and the cover story is about hunting in Canada...LOL. I think maybe it's just a city-rural issue.
T
I doubt it being the information appears to be based on "gun owners" and does not appear (read) to include "in possession."
However, illegally possessed does not automatically lead to "criminally used."
The bottom line is, the numbers indicating accidental and criminally used against the law-abiding citizen is far less than the propagandist report.
Certain numbers should be removed from the count. When predators a/k/a scumbags shoot each other, that count should be used to evaluate environment improvement and firearm effectiveness.
posted on August 9, 2000 01:06:17 AM
"When predators a/k/a scumbags shoot each other, that count should be used to evaluate
environment improvement and firearm effectiveness."
Knock it off, Mike.
I think that the more salient point to make is that firearms, of themselves, are inert, and do nothing. No gun has been recorded to have shot anyone, either accidentally or intentionally, legally owned or criminally possessed.
You've seen the bumper sticker "Guns Don't Kill People; People Kill People".
It's true.
scruwubb
[ edited by krs on Aug 9, 2000 01:09 AM ]
"When predators a/k/a scumbags, shoot each other, that count should be used to evaluate environmental improvement."
Seriously said with conviction. I am neither uneducated nor unrefined, I am a realist. I prefer not to confuse the expressing of my personal beliefs with PC or "beat around the bush" remarks.
From (extensive) personal experience, I know there is human garbage not worthy of civilized treatment, and most definitely not deserving of a respective description or wishing the best.
posted on August 9, 2000 07:03:25 AM
But Mike, your words could be seen as a death wish.
I'm sure that you would not care for a huggy, fuzzy, thread in your honor; or one begun to speak falsely of your worth in order to dissuade you.
