Gun Accidents

[PhillyKev 0]

Ahhh...come on John...you're a semi-intelligent kinda guy...follow the logic.

That's exactly the point. Does owning a parachute put you at risk of having a skydiving accident? Of course not. Improper use of your parachute will, though. The same is true for guns. Owning a gun is not an inherently dangerous thing. How you use it is a different matter.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Does owning a parachute put you at risk of having a skydiving accident? Of course not. Improper use of your parachute will, though. The same is true for guns. Owning a gun is not an inherently dangerous thing. How you use it is a different matter.

You just shot down your argument from the previous post.

Does owning a gun put you at increased risk ? NO. Therefore comparing car stats of time spent in + around vehicles with 24x7 gun ownership stats are ridiculous. You have to compare exposure time... as guns are not dangerous sat in a draw that does not count towards exposure time.

[PhillyKev 0]

Fine...take it further than. If you want to correlate active use and exposure, than you have to remove all accidental shootings from the comparison where somone deliberately shot someone accidentally

If you're saying that presence of a gun is not exposure. And you can't shoot someone without pulling the trigger, than what is an accident?

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Ahhh...come on John...you're a semi-intelligent kinda guy...follow the logic.

That's exactly the point. Does owning a parachute put you at risk of having a skydiving accident? Of course not. Improper use of your parachute will, though. The same is true for guns. Owning a gun is not an inherently dangerous thing. How you use it is a different matter.

I'm prepared to bet real money that parachute owners have more skydiving accidents than non-owners.

"You can do everything right and still die"

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

And I'm willing to bet that gun owners have more gun related accidents than non-owners. In both cases, it's a risk that person decides to take and they are responsible for their own safety.

[mr2mk1g 10]

hey, I'm not looking for such a comparison. I just found your change of heart in the space of two posts amusing.

[PhillyKev 0]

It wasn't a change of heart. It was an illustration that correlating accidental death statistics between cars and guns is silly. The only thing you can say with any clarity is that accidental gun deaths are statistically insignificant, while auto deaths are not.

[mr2mk1g 10]

It is a silly comparison to draw... but were someone to do it they certainly wouldn't be using 24x7 as a gun owners "exposure time"... because... drum roll... gun ownership is not of its self dangerous.

You are not "exposed" to a gun merely because it exists... similarly you are not exposed to a car merely because it exists. You have to drive the car, walk by the car or pick up the gun, have someone else pick up the gun.

Thus Kallend's statement agreeing with the earlier rebuttal of such a comparison is correct.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

or pick up the gun

There are a lot of people who carry them, keep them loaded and accessible, or use them at the range.

That being said. I am much more at risk of being killed by a car as a pedestrian than I am of being accidentally killed by someone else's gun. So which would you consider to be a greater threat to the general public?

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

So which would you consider to be a greater threat to the general public?

I don't know... more to the point I don't really care.

I feel far more at risk from cars than guns. Hell, I feel more at risk from falling down the stairs than I do of guns... but then I don't live in the same country as you. Thus my perceptions of the risks aren't at all useful to this discussion.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

or pick up the gun

There are a lot of people who carry them, keep them loaded and accessible, or use them at the range.

That being said. I am much more at risk of being killed by a car as a pedestrian than I am of being accidentally killed by someone else's gun. So which would you consider to be a greater threat to the general public?

Oh, c'mon Kev... you KNOW it's the EEEEEVVVVIIIILLLL guns that are more dangerous!!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[PhillyKev 0]

Well, I'll tell you. I live in a large city, literally 10 blocks and a river away from the most dangerous city in the US, and I'm much more in danger from cars than guns, and I don't drive.

I can understand why some people want to limit access to guns, although I don't agree. But the absolutely poorest argument for that is citing risk of accidental shootings. Yet it seems to be one of the most common.

[mr2mk1g 10]

You're right in that its one of the areas where the lest benefits would be seen.

I don't dispute the idea that fewer guns would mean fewer accidental deaths - I'd be stupid not to... but I don't think that the reduction in deaths would be that statistically significant by comparison to the reduction in ownership you would need to achieve it.

In essence, whilst technically correct, I would suggest there are far more compelling arguments to run. I'm not a fan of the argue-everything-possible strategy, you simply end up looking like an idiot. Overall it's far better to pick and chose your arguments and only really press it home when you have a compelling point to make.

Sadly there are a lot of people out there who want to argue every single point of every single argument. It just makes people look silly IMO.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

If you take into account the amount of time spent in cars as compared to the amount of time that guns are used, or in other words the amount of time where accidents can occur in cars as compared to the amount of time where accidents can occur with guns, the conclusion that cars are more dangerous then guns would not hold up. The frequency at which cars are used is so much higher then the frequency of gun use. Hence the conclusion that cars are more dangerous then guns to me seems flawed. In any rate the reduction of gun accidents is defiantly a good trend. I hope this trend continues.

Your analysis is not incoorect, it is based on false information.

A car accident can only happen when the key and the driver are within arm's reach of the vehicle, right? (or it is hotwired)

So with commuting, errands, etc, let's say a person spends on average three hours each day in an operational car.

A firearm accident can happen anytime ammunition and shooter are within arm's reach of the gun (not in a safe), right?

Which do you think is more often ready for use, a gun or a car?
Like PhillyKev said, many gun are 'available for an accident' 24/7. Can you really say the same for cars?

ps - don't count the number of times it is used, count the amount of time it is available for use as defined above.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

No, incorrect analysis. How are you defining use of a gun? Every time it's pointed at someone and fired? Well, then that's not an accident, is it? I would consider use of a gun to be anytime it is available to be used for protection. For many guns that is 24x7.

My parachute is available 24x7 to save me if I fall out of a plane. Considered on that basis, parachuting is an extremely safe activity.

Agreed, parachuting is not very dangerous at all. However, jumping out of an airplane or off a base height fixed object is very dangerous.

It's not using the parachute that is dangerous, it is the situation you put yourself in to use it that is dangerous. Completely not useful for the discussion at hand.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

You can't go that route either.

I don't drive, but I've got a pretty good chance of being hit by a car. I'm feet to inches away from probably hundreds of cars a day.

Like I said, you can't draw a valid comparison between these two subjects. It's an exercise in futility.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I'm prepared to bet real money that parachute owners have more skydiving accidents than non-owners.

"You can do everything right and still die"

Do I really have to explain the difference between correlation and causation to you, again?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 3,120]

> Owning a gun is not an inherently dangerous thing.

If you never handle either a gun or a parachute, then you are correct. If you handle both, a gun is more likely to kill you than a parachute - although I'm sure you could figure out how to strangle yourself with the bridle or something.

Guns are dangerous, and they require competence and respect to be able to use them safely. One reason that accidental gun deaths have been declining, I believe, is that people _are_ treating them as dangerous devices. Teaching that they are no more dangerous than a pile of nylon will lead to more, not fewer, accidental gun deaths.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

If you never handle either a gun or a parachute, then you are correct. If you handle both, a gun is more likely to kill you than a parachute - although I'm sure you could figure out how to strangle yourself with the bridle or something.

Guns are dangerous, and they require competence and respect to be able to use them safely. One reason that accidental gun deaths have been declining, I believe, is that people _are_ treating them as dangerous devices. Teaching that they are no more dangerous than a pile of nylon will lead to more, not fewer, accidental gun deaths.

I like the comparison of an object with the primary purpose to kill to an object with the primary object of saving a life. Makes perfect sense to me....

[PhillyKev 0]

Very good points. However I was talking about statistical probabilities, not the inherent danger.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I like the comparison of an object with the primary purpose to kill to an object with the primary object of saving a life. Makes perfect sense to me....

Well, I view guns as a device whose primary purpose for the average owner in the US is as a life saving device. A parachute is used to defeat gravity in its attempt to kill you while engaging in a recreational activity. A gus is used to defeat a murderer in their attempt to kill you when you're minding your own business sleeping in your bed at night or walking down the street.

And tell me how comparing a device used for transportation is any more valid?

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

One reason that accidental gun deaths have been declining, I believe, is that people _are_ treating them as dangerous devices.

And that starts with good parenting.

I was raised around firearms, my entire life I've been around firearms. Since I was a very little boy I knew how to correctly handle a handgun (SA and revolver) and a "long gun" (be it a rifle, shotgun, musket...).

I was taught how to shoot at a very young age as well.

I was taught proper safety, just about everything you need to know about proper gun handling.


What does that mean? Well, if you're anti-gun rights, that means I'm going to turn into a criminal and use a gun. If you're intelligent enough to use some logic you'll see that my father taught me these things since he knew he wouldn't be with me (even as a child) everytime a gun may be around. He was "gun proofing" me for when he wasn't there to help.

Now that I'm an adult I know exactly what I'm doing with any of the weapons I own or may encounter. I know how to hold and handle them properly, etc.

Thus my personal gun accident rate has been very low. How low? Zero accidents. That includes the past few years in which I've constantly had a loaded weapon on me or near me at nearly all times.


Now, what if I wasn't taught that growing up? What would I know about gun safety until I became older? Not enough to keep myself safe, that's for sure!

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Now, what if I wasn't taught that growing up? What would I know about gun safety until I became older? Not enough to keep myself safe, that's for sure!

Bull....

I was never exposed to guns as a child. When I decided to own guns, the first thing I did was study the safety aspects and get training. I spent a month holding my first gun unloaded and with my finger off the trigger for hours a day to train proper trigger discipline before I even brought ammo into my house. I see people who have been around guns since child hood doing stupid ass shit with firearms that I would never dream of.


Nevermind....just read the "until I got older part". At first your post sounded like you were saying you couldn't be a safe gun owner unless you were raised around them.

[christelsabine 1]

Now, what if I wasn't taught that growing up? What would I know about gun safety until I became older? Not enough to keep myself safe, that's for sure!
_______________________________________________________

What would you know about growing up in a world like ours where kids live w/o beeing teached how to use weapons? Nothing.

"Our" kids know that. They do not need to be well trained on any weapons to live their life. My big boy (22 yrs) is preparing himself for a (every) Friday night's party, leaving the house sometimes at 23.30. Coming back somewhat next afternoon. Or 2 days later from his girlfriend. Without any (hand) gun.

Simple life.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Nevermind....just read the "until I got older part". At first your post sounded like you were saying you couldn't be a safe gun owner unless you were raised around them.

Yeah, I was talking about kids (under 18 generally) who have never been exposed to them.

Not adults who take the time to learn how to handle firearms safely.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."