85-year-old woman forces intruder to call cops

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

There are an awful lot of dead people who'd still be alive if some careless gun owner had used a trigger lock.

Some would say that there are an awful lot of dead people who'd still be alive if some careless skydiver watched for other canopies.
And some would say that there are an awful lot of dead people who'd still be alive if we ban skydiving altogether.

It just depends on how you say it. A lot of people, including young kids, would still be alive if some careless drivers just look ahead.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[kallend 2,154]

Quote

Quote

There are an awful lot of dead people who'd still be alive if some careless gun owner had used a trigger lock.

Some would say that there are an awful lot of dead people who'd still be alive if some careless skydiver watched for other canopies.
And some would say that there are an awful lot of dead people who'd still be alive if we ban skydiving altogether.

It just depends on how you say it. A lot of people, including young kids, would still be alive if some careless drivers just look ahead.

Well, I s'pose it's OK to be careless with guns, then. But it does sound a bit like CDIF logic, IMO.

...

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

[billvon 3,120]

>A lot of people, including young kids, would still be alive if some
>careless drivers just look ahead.

That's definitely true. And while there is no substitute for care when driving, there are also laws that say cars have to have relatively flat front bumpers that reduce the hazard to pedestrians when they are involved in a low speed collision.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

My 63 year life (30 on the south side of Chicago) has depended on lots of things, but not either of those. Nor do I anticipate that it will.

And I hope it does not, either.

Quote

But to dispute your point, if a bull is charging you and your only way out is to unlock a gate...

Valid comparison, but hardly germane - unless there's a bull waiting to charge you every time you unlock a gate.

Quote

There are an awful lot of dead people who'd still be alive if some careless gun owner had used a trigger lock.

And there's an awful lot of dead people who'd still be alive if some careless legislator had allowed them an effective method of self-defense. Look up the Merced Pitchfork murders.

Now - did you have a point, or is it the normal "we don't care IF they're killed, we just care what they're killed WITH" argument of the left?

You still haven't answered the question if you're willing to have your restrictions placed on other rights.

Ready to go get that free speech test and registration taken care of? How about that voting license?

If they do it to ONE right, they WILL do it all, sooner or later.

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Well, I s'pose it's OK to be careless with guns, then.

It is not OK to be careless in skydiving or while driving a car as well. And still some people will be careless, and we will have accidents. Banning skydiving or driving altogether is not a solution. Educating people will work, but there is no solution which would completely prevent those accidents. At least no country found it so far.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[kallend 2,154]

You confuse FACTS (some 800 accidental shooting deaths annually) with speculation (what **may** have happened), once again.

...

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

[happythoughts 0]

When you are 85, a simple fall can be fatal, or at the least, life changing.

That lady saved herself from extreme harm without harming others.

Do you have a statistic that shows the number of people not killed this year?

[billvon 3,120]

>It is not OK to be careless in skydiving or while driving a car as well.

Definitely. So educate people to prevent carelessness, and require reserves and seatbelts for when they (or someone else) _is_ careless.

[downwardspiral 0]

I actually keep a trigger lock on my handgun. But that's my choice and I don't pretend to know what's right for other people. How exactly could they mandate trigger locks anyway? At what point and time would it be ok to remove the trigger lock?

Seems like hokie balokie to me.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[downwardspiral 0]

Hell yes! Education is key. Far more lives would be saved if the anti-gunners would stop focusing on guns are evil and start focusing on educating the public on gun safety. EVERYBODY should know how to handle a gun safely whether they choose to own or not.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You confuse FACTS (some 800 accidental shooting deaths annually) with speculation (what **may** have happened), once again.

And you speculate by saying that restrictions will change anything - how'd that work out for the usual suspects? It didn't - murders didn't magically stop in Washington DC, Chicago, Detroit, NYC etc etc when bans went into place.

You still haven't answered whether you're willing to have those same restrictions applied against other rights.

Again, it shows that HOW the murders were committed is more important to you than the murders themselves.

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

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

And you speculate by saying that restrictions will change anything

The old woman would be dead or severely injured.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

>The "unequate-able-ness" of it typically is unfavorable to those
>suggesting car-like restrictions on guns.

It's unfavorable on both sides. Cars aren't like guns, guns aren't like alcohol, alcohol is not like a car. All have various restrictions applied to them, but since they are inherently different items, with different purposes, dangers and requirements, the restrictions are quite different in each case.

>Let's start with, "A gun license would then mean you could take your
>gun anywhere you can legally go,"

Are you comparing that to a driver's license? Then yes, you could take a gun anywhere you could take a car. (i.e a public road.)

Of course, the analogy immediately breaks down, because few people have the problem of whether you can take your car into a movie theatre.

Hey. I went to In-N-Out w/ my 80 yr. old uncle (licensed driver) awhile back. He drove the Lincoln IN AND OUT. Literally. And he still has his license.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

>Licensing CLEARLY allows incompetents on the road.

Absolutely. It helps with, but does not solve, the problem.

It "solves" the problem in the same way that CCW licenses "solve" the problem of bad guys going around with guns: it allows honest people to show that they're honest, and dishonest people to continue to show that they're dishonest.

Quote

>and simply has no power to prevent those who have no licenses to get
>out on the road and drive anyway.

Actually, it does. It is difficult to drive when you are in jail.

And as I've pointed out (well, really, the newspaper repeatedly points out for me), our system does not reliably send these people to jail until they are ten, twelve, eighteen-time offenders!!

Quote

>Registration of vehicles is purely for revenue purposes, and has
>no bearing on safety whatsoever.

Registration allows regular inspections - and they DO have an impact on safety. They also allow enforcement of insurance laws, and those help victims of accidents.j

Sorry, the safety I'm talking about is about MISUSE, ABUSE, or CARELESS USE of cars. Not about wheels falling off, Billvon, and I think you knew that. I'm not concerned here with "helping victims of accidents"--I thought we were talking about what would help prevent the accidents in the first place. Most people who are concerned about guns being misused criminally are not going to be happy if you do nothing about bad guys using them, but cheerfully tell them that "we have first-rate medical professionals standing by to help you once you've been shot."

Quote

>If you want us to put seatbelts, brake lights and tail lights on guns,
>I would be obligated to ask why.

Think trigger locks.

I knew you were thinking trigger locks and wanted to have fun with your response first.

Billvon, are you saying that somehow we're going to get criminals to put trigger locks on the guns they're carrying around illegally? Or that any of the guns that honest citizens are keeping around for self defense should be kept with trigger locks on them?

Statistically speaking, Billvon, there are under 1000 deaths due to accidental shootings each year in this country--an insignificant number compared to the overall gun owner or guns-owned figures. (note: I am not saying that any family member's death is "insignificant," only pointing out that in any system with monumental numbers you will have deaths that cannot be practically avoided) I doubt that many of the accidental shooting deaths occur because someone somehow did not know you could lock a gun away from a child. They occur because that person didn't care to. How would you enforce a law requiring trigger lock use if not by unannounced inspections and searches of households containing guns? Otherwise, it's back to square one, where you have a guy who knows that the law will punish him ex post facto if his kid shoots himself, but you can't make him put the trigger lock on before the fact.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

If the above is NOT what you meant, then your talk of 'treating guns like cars' is a damn lie.

I could easily go for that.

You might be forgetting that the insurance premiums will likely be so high that only Bill Gates and Warren Buffet will be able to own guns and take them off private property.

The insurance premiums would be determined largely by what the companies expect to have to pay out.

Would your car insurance cover you for damage you did deliberately and criminally with your car? No, I don't think so.

When the insurance companies discovered that they were not on the hook for every gang-banger's drive-by shooting, or bank or 7-Eleven robbery, but only for damage done by people who were not committing crimes with their guns (and in some states it's a crime ex post facto if you left your gun where a kid eventually got at it and had an accident with it), we would see just how few HONEST people are causing damage with guns. I proffer that the premiums would be not so high as you are implying.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Insurance isn't a point of the discussion - nice strawman, though.

NONE of the above is applicable to purchase for home defense - only for carry in public.

Insurance is a requirement to operate a car on public roads (and on quite a few private lands as well), so I don't see how that would not be part of a discussion on treating guns and cars equally. certainly not a strawman.

State insurance boards exist in part to regulate the insurance companies so that they can't charge "a thousand zillion dollars" just to profit hugely. Likewise, IF the anti-gunners conceded to have gun owners enjoy all the benefits of car-like licensure (which they never would agree to when they'd see how much we'd gain) I imagine a state gun insurance board would be created to keep the premiums realistic instead of amounting to a de facto ban.

Quote

I agree that none of that has to do with purchase for home defense. Never said it did either. Just saying that if you do treat them the same most people would not be able to afford to carry in public.

I disagree for the previously stated reasons (in this and my previous post).

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

People generally cost far more to fix than cars.

Why would anyone's policy be required to pay to fix a person who was shot legally by a person exercising his right of self defense? If I shoot a guy who's attacking me, I am not going to have to pay for his funeral, and I am not going to lose a civil lawsuit that tries to force me to do so. Why would my insurance company be any more liable?

And if I were a gang member and shot someone criminally, my policy (as if I'd have a policy to cover a gun I was a criminal for owning) would likewise be held harmless.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

>But no one wants to limit the sale of alcohol? Why not?

The sale of alcohol IS limited a great deal. You can't sell it without a liquor license. You have to proof people. You can't sell it at all in many areas. There are limits on what you can sell, when you can sell it, how much you can sell and what condition it has to be in when you sell it. There are laws concerning what you can do with it once you buy it, who you can give it to and where you can and can't have it.

And people are always trying to limit it more. I am sure you've heard of MADD.

I suspect you knew very well that he meant to compare the way people want to do away fully with guns. Where is there a political party of any note in this country that has historically stood for doing away with alcohol the way Democrats have stood for doing away (if piece by piece) with gun rights?

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

You confuse FACTS (some 800 accidental shooting deaths annually) with speculation (what **may** have happened), once again.

You forget that the U.S. accidental shooting death rate has steadily declined for all the time since records of it have been kept, despite the constant growth of the number of firearms in private hands in the U.S. How do you account for that? More guns, but nonetheless, fewer accidental deaths! Big hole in your philosophy--but it wasn't put there by a gun.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

>It is not OK to be careless in skydiving or while driving a car as well.

Definitely. So educate people to prevent carelessness, and require reserves and seatbelts for when they (or someone else) _is_ careless.

I take it this relates to "require trigger locks on guns in the home"? But if you're talking about careless people, they are not going to use them! This is obvious. You can mandate that trigger locks be sold with the guns, but you will still have people who decline to use them.

The simple fact is that responsible people keep their guns away from unauthorized users on their own, without the need for unenforceable laws telling them to do so. Why would you want to put more laws on the books, Billvon, that no one would ever be able to enforce except for after a kid gets killed, or by violation of search and seizure law?

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire