Clearly We Need More Guns
Tweet
More, more, more.
A 3-year-old girl found a gun in a bedroom of her home and shot herself in the head Sunday, police said.
One of the girl’s parents apparently owned the gun, and at least one parent was home when she shot herself Sunday afternoon. Police questioned the parents and took the gun, the Detroit Free Press reported.
91 Responses to “Clearly We Need More Guns”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
too bad those parents didn’t teach the little girl about guns. Maybe take her shooting instead of sucking on their crack pipe.
But when you look at the number of guns per 100,000 bathtubs it…
Oh, never mind.
Hey, if that little girl didn’t have access to that gun, the King of England could have gone to her home and pushed her around. Would you like that more? Would you?
Yeah, I didn’t think so, hippie.
What sort of parent leaves a loaded gun around a 3-year old?!?
Clearly parents who are not responsible gun owners need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
And anyone else who leaves their 3 year old unsupervised near dangerous situations.
If the kid fell in a pool unsupervised and drowned, got attacked by a family pet the parents left in the same room as the child. These things happen and the parents need to be prosecuted.
Otherwise we have to ban swimming pools and pets.
[...] (Hat tip) Filed under: Misc. | [...]
Trigger locks are a new world order plot to the GOP’s militiaist base
What sort of parent leaves a loaded gun around a 3-year old?!?
A Reagan Democrat (i.e., a neo-Republican).
Do the questions get harder as we go along?
The purpose of a pool or a pet is not to kill. A gun is designed to kill.
1. trigger locks
2. gun safes/locked cases
3. leaving gun unloaded
Any one of the three measures above would have prevented this.
Very foolish of the parents to leave a loaded gun around. They should be prosecuted.
Here we go with the “designed to kill” canard. That means if I go to the range and hit nothing but targets, I’m using a poorly designed gun as it didn’t kill anything.
But aside from that, who cares what these things were designed for? A kid dies accidentally in a pool, it doesn’t register with the media and we just consider it a tragic accident (despite the fact they number in the thousands each year). But if a child dies from an accidental gunshot wound? Look out. That’s going to make it to MSNBC and CNN.
I wonder why that is.
The purpose of my guns to put holes in little pieces of paper at 30 yards. It’s very relaxing.
Is a gun designed to kill 3-year-old children?
Here we go with the “designed to kill” canard. That means if I go to the range and hit nothing but targets, I’m using a poorly designed gun as it didn’t kill anything.
No, you’re using a properly designed gun, you just didn’t use it for its intended purpose. If you use the handgun to hammer in a nail, you are also improperly using a well-designed gun.
It’s not a canard, Jay. The gun wasn’t invented in the first place because somebody was looking for a way to shoot at lifeless targets, it was invented to kill. The bow and arrow was invented for the same reason and the gun was invented to do the work of the bow and arrow more efficiently. When used properly, the gun’s intended purpose is to take down a living target by introducing a foreign object to its body at high velocity.
If it weren’t so, bullets wouldn’t be made of metal.
I wonder why that is.
Because there’s no insane right-wing whack-job National Pool Association with zillions of dollars to successfully lobby against even the simplest, most logical regulations, like, say, putting a fence around a pool. There’s no NPA equivalent of Wayne LaPierre saying that Democrats “want more pool deaths” or Chuck Heston saying that pool deaths are the result of “multi-ethnicities” or other truly horrible nonsense. That’s why that is.
So are the questions ever going to get harder around here, or what?
No, you’re using a properly designed gun, you just didn’t use it for its intended purpose.
If I bought a gun for target shooting, then how I am not using it for its intended purpose?
Sorry, but it is a canard because the “intended purpose” changes with the person using the gun. Give one person a .50 caliber handgun and his “intended purpose” could be to shoot it a range. Give it to somebody else and his “intended purpose” could be to use it to hunt. The “intended purpose” of the Henckels knives I have in my kitchen are for culinary use. But they could easily be used as weapons and kill somebody.
When used properly, the gun’s intended purpose is to take down a living target by introducing a foreign object to its body at high velocity.
See what I mean? The only conclusion one can reach from this claim is that if I don’t take down a living target, then I’m not using the gun ‘properly.’ And that’s just wrong.
My overall point is that by bringing in the “guns are made to kill” argument is a diversionary tactic. The media doesn’t apply the same standards of coverage to incidents where a child is injured with a firearm vis a vis when they’re injured in a bathtub or swimming pool, despite far more incidents of the latter than the former.
Yet, when it happens, people are more than willing to start touting new laws and regulations, but nobody seems to get the same kind of attitude when a child drowns in a pool or bathtub. We’re willing to accept that it’s just an accident, though one has to wonder why parents leave their kids unattended in a bathtub long enough for them to drown, or don’t pay attention enough when their kid slips out of the house and heads for the pool.
Yet, when it happens, people are more than willing to start touting new laws and regulations, but nobody seems to get the same kind of attitude when a child drowns in a pool or bathtub.
One reason is because there are already sensible laws about pools (e.g., a fence is required) which would not exist if some NPA (see above post)existed and had its well-funded way. It’s also worth noting that many of us supported sensible and enforceable gun laws before the latest avoidable tragedy. Of course, many of us were opposed to the Iraq Invasion before the fact. How’d that turn out?
And speaking of the predictably disastrous Iraq Invasion, your argument that guns are as dangerous as bathtubs sounds an awful lot like the “Washington DC is as dangerous as Iraq” bulljive that the Right Wing Noise Machine was repeating not so long ago. It’s very silly. You should drop it because it makes you sound like a knee-jerk Sean Hannity et al Clone. Which is to say, not very smart.
That means if I go to the range and hit nothing but targets, I’m using a poorly designed gun as it didn’t kill anything.
You could do the same thing with a pellet gun, yes? Why do you have to use so much more force?
At least you have good taste in kitchen equipment.
The media doesn’t apply the same standards of coverage to incidents where a child is injured with a firearm vis a vis when they’re injured in a bathtub or swimming pool, despite far more incidents of the latter than the former.
See, this is why I vow never to have a goddam pool in my house, filled or empty. It’s just too dangerous.
Or small children.
One reason is because there are already sensible laws about pools (e.g., a fence is required)
Actually fences are not required in many areas. And you can bet that if people were told they had to cover their pools every night, or keep them empty when not in use, they would be in an uproar.
It’s also worth noting that many of us supported sensible and enforceable gun laws
‘Sensible’ is a subjective term. There are people that believe the DC handgun laws are ‘sensible.’
your argument that guns are as dangerous as bathtubs
Oh brother, here we go with that horseshit again. Just because the fact is pointed out that more kids die accidentally in pools and bathtubs does not equate to the argument that guns and bathtubs are equally dangerous. Ok, but it is a FACT that more kids die in drowning accidents than in firearm accidents. Much more. Yet, we don’t apply the same kind of standards all around to those accidents do we? Leave a loaded gun lying around and it’s automatically assumed to be negligence on the part of the parents and somehow the fault of the NRA who are opposed to mandatory trigger locks, but when a kid drowns in a pool or is left unattended in a bathtub and drowns, all we do is bemoan a “tragic accident.” The same stigma doesn’t apply.
Having grown up in Manhattan, I can tell you that there is absolutely no reason a private citizen needs to own his own swimming pool.
They’re both tragic accidents, Jay. No one is suggesting otherwise.
More kids do not drown in pools and bathtubs than are killed by guns in any given year Jay. 1.8 kids-teens/100,000 die every year in the US by gunfire. vs. 0 in Japan. 1.3 kids/teens drown per year. There are more kids living in homes in the US with bathtubs and pools than there are homes with guns.
Also, a gun is a weapon. Our soldiers do not carry bathtubs to war. Iraqi insurgents do not leave the full bathtubs by the side of the road hoping US soldiers fall in and drown.
Jay, the intention of the gun made at the factory is to create a weapon. The intention of the ammo manufacturer is to create a weapon.
After it is bought, the manufacturer could care less if you use a gun and bullet as a doorstop and a wrist charm, but when they are manufactured and tested they are building a device that has always had the express purpose of killing something.
If they were manufacturing guns for the relatively innocuous purpose of shooting a piece of paper (which, in many cases, is shaped like a human torso), then you wouldn’t have such an issue with mandatory trigger locks. After all, you don’t need to quickly lock and load against a stationary dummy.
Midderpridge…
Are you referring to accidental deaths among CHILDREN, or are you including young men, say 14-18, who are deliberately shot and killed? Big difference. In my mind the true tragedy of careless gun ownership is the child who finds a loaded gun and shots himself or a friend with it. While young men shooting each other is tragic, it’s a different sort of tragedy entirely, and I don’t think it belongs in a comparison to accidental drownings in bathtubs, pools, and buckets.
Our soldiers do not carry bathtubs to war.
Unless of course they are in the CIA.
More kids do not drown in pools and bathtubs than are killed by guns in any given year Jay.
The key word is ‘children.’ I don’t go by statistics that consider 17 and 18 year olds as ‘children.’ When you look at the statistics for children 14 and younger, more are killed in accidents involving pools and bathtubs than guns. It’s as simple as that.
but when they are manufactured and tested they are building a device that has always had the express purpose of killing something.
Once again Spider, you have to consider the logic of your statement. If guns are expressly created for the purpose of killing, how do they perform such tests? Are human being used in the labs to determine that the gun is designed properly?
The fact of the matter is, there are pistols that are expressly designed for target shooting. Can such weapons kill? Sure, their “intended purpose” is to be used in competition sport shooting.
The mindset you fall into with the “guns are designed to kill” mentality (one that automatically associates guns with death) is the one that allows such stupid laws and regulations to pass, often with no depreciable affect on whatever its supposed to be preventing and in the meantime, making it more difficult for a person to defend themselves if necessary. What is the point of having a gun for self defense if the gun and ammo have to be locked in separate areas, and the gun is required to have a trigger lock?
However, if the purpose is to “save children” then why are not similar draconian laws applied to other areas where kids are more likely to be killed accidentally?
Gun violence is gun violence whether accidental or deliberate. Plenty of kids get shot as innocent bystanders that I just can’t run statistics on. The whole comparison to bathtub deaths is bad anyway. Kids are exposed to bathtubs far more often than guns, yet more kids die of guns than of drowning. Guns are illegal in Japan. ZERO kids die by gunfire every year in Japan. That’s a relevant comparison.
Midderpridge…
For myself, the issue is, if someone comes into my home and wants to harm my family (as happened last week 6 blocks from my house…a home invasion culminating in two abducted minors,) then I believe I should be allowed to use any means I can to protect my family. Someone who would rather rely on hope or a baseball bat…well, that’s a different philosophy that they are entitled to. Having said that, if I do choose to own a gun for defense, and it is found and misused by a child, then I am 100% responsible.
God bless the Japanese…I’ve spent over a year in that country. One thing they don’t have over there is violent American men going around breaking into houses. We do. It’s a chicken-and-egg thing, but the egg has already hatched, and here we are.
While young men shooting each other is tragic, it’s a different sort of tragedy entirely, and I don’t think it belongs in a comparison to accidental drownings in bathtubs, pools, and buckets.
Let the record show that it was Jay who made that comparison a the outset. The last time there was a tragic gun accident.
Gun violence is gun violence whether accidental or deliberate.
And dead is dead, whether it’s a motor vehicle accident, drowning accident or a firearm accident.
The whole comparison to bathtub deaths is bad anyway. Kids are exposed to bathtubs far more often than guns, yet more kids die of guns than of drowning.
We’re talking accidental deaths. 16 year old kids don’t take baths. 3 year olds do. Stop trying to put a haze over the subject.
Guns are illegal in Japan. ZERO kids die by gunfire every year in Japan. That’s a relevant comparison.
Japan doesn’t have our constitution so it’s irrelevant.
Jay seems to be arguing that a gun is not necessarily a weapon.
Japan doesn’t have our constitution so it’s irrelevant.
And England doesn’t have our weather. France doesn’t have our language. Italy doesn’t have Lindsay Lohan. So no point in comparing anything about America to anything about any other country either.
I’m so jealous of Italy.
make sure you lift with your knees when you’re moving those goalposts, there, Jay.
Sean, that’s exactly right when discussing the issue of guns. Japan is basically a police state so what’s the point? Japan has higher rates of suicide than we do here. Does that mean anything? Not in the context we’re discussing it.
Somebody answer a simple question: What’s the point of Oliver’s post?
Can anybody answer that?
Jay seems to be arguing that a gun is not necessarily a weapon.
Uh, no Quaker. What I am arguing is that “guns are designed to kill” is not a valid argument when discussing accidental deaths. If such thinking made any sense, then as parents we could leave nail guns, matches, knives, razor blades, etc. just lying around for kids to get a hold of. After all, those things are not “designed to kill” and therefore it doesn’t matter that they can. Of course, such thinking is absurd, but then so again is using the “guns are designed to kill” tactic.
No? My mistake. When I read this…
..I thought that’s what you were saying. Just in the interest of clarity, it’s the “mindset” you mentioned that’s most interesting to me.
Then a gun IS necessarily a weapon?
Can anybody answer that?
Yes.
Remember when that caveman sharpened a stick and made a spear? I bet he thought “Now can make holes in tree for entertainment.”
Give me a break a gun is a weapon. When you shoot at a target you are practicing the art of war, killing or defense. Simple as that. You may call it entertainment, but the root of the sport is practicing for when you need to shoot at someone.
Has Jay produced a single, fact-checkable source? Does he think that waiting periods are sensible, or that gun show loopholes are not? Which of the NRA’s positions does he support or not support? Does he think that writing, “Stop trying to put a haze over the subject,” is an example of what The Kids call projection?
Bathtubs don’t kill people; people kill people!
What I am arguing is that “guns are designed to kill” is not a valid argument when discussing accidental deaths.
Well, it is very hard to design something to be specifically used to kill accidentaly.
“Has Jay produced a single, fact-checkable source?”
No.
“Does he think that waiting periods are sensible, or that gun show loopholes are not?”
He never says. On the other thread, he is for restrictions, he apparently just doesn’t like ones put there by liberals. Or something. He doesn’t say.
“Does he think that writing, “Stop trying to put a haze over the subject,” is an example of what The Kids call projection?”
Does HE think so? No. Showing a disturbing lack of self-awareness.
“Well, it is very hard to design something to be specifically used to kill accidentaly.”
According to one of our great American thinkers, it has been done, Duros. Remember the other day when I was proposing a national Mark Twain holiday? Here’s one reason why:
Does he think that waiting periods are sensible
When an abused women gets a death threat from her ex-significant other and goes to purchase a handgun for her own defense, they’re not sensible.
In fact, one could argue they’re a death trap.
When an abused women gets a death threat from her ex-significant other and goes to purchase a handgun for her own defense, they’re not sensible.
Of course, if the abused woman doesn’t have to wait, then neither does her abuser. And thanks to the current Supreme Court, it’s a violation of her abuser’s rights to impose restrictions on his ability to buy a gun just because she has taken out a restraining order against him.
Death trap, indeed, ‘Pan.
The answer, then, may not be to do away with waiting periods. As Quaker notes, then the waiting period is gone for the abuser as well.
A much better solution would be to make sure the abused doesn’t have to rely solely on themselves for protection.
In fact, one could argue they’re a death trap.
That’s an awesome point.
And one could argue that Saddam Hussein was in immediate threat with balsa wood planes that could destroy us all. And that if we just stick it out in Iraq for another 6 months, that there’ll be ponies for all.
Well, one could argue.
Has Jay produced a single, fact-checkable source?
Actually, anybody can go to the CDC website and the numbers there can be verified.
Does he think that waiting periods are sensible, or that gun show loopholes are not?
No, waiting periods are not sensible. A person hell-bent on killing somebody doesn’t need to abide by a waiting period to do what they want and waiting periods could affect the ability of a person to protect themselves. And there’s no such thing as gun show loopholes. Federally licensed dealers are required to perform background at checks at gun shows.
He never says. On the other thread, he is for restrictions, he apparently just doesn’t like ones put there by liberals. Or something. He doesn’t say.
Actually, I did say. Those who have the ability to read for content would see that. In order for a restriction to be in place, the government should have a compelling interest in doing so. Too often now it’s “because we (the state) feel like it.”
As for an abuser, a person with a misdemeanor domestic assault record is not eligible to purchase a firearm so he would be denied instantly. As such, the waiting period would adversely affect the woman who wants to buy one for protection.
A much better solution would be to make sure the abused doesn’t have to rely solely on themselves for protection.
Unfortunately, every victim of domestic abuse cannot have around the clock protection from the cops. As such, her best defense is self defense.
What I am arguing is that “guns are designed to kill” is not a valid argument when discussing accidental deaths.
Gunpowder was used for fireworks until someone figured he could kill people efficiently by putting it into a tube and using it to push out pieces of metal. So, yes, Jay, according to history, GUNS ARE DESIGNED TO KILL. The fact that you can list other objects that are extremely lethal if used improperly doesn’t change that fact. Just because you can accidentally drown in a bathtub doesn’t mean that an accidental firearms death isn’t caused by a weapon designed to kill.
Here’s a test. Which would you rather have your child exposed to: a loaded gun or a loaded bathtub.
Of course, if the abused woman doesn’t have to wait, then neither does her abuser. And thanks to the current Supreme Court, it’s a violation of her abuser’s rights to impose restrictions on his ability to buy a gun just because she has taken out a restraining order against him.
Death trap, indeed, ‘Pan.
Who says her attacker also has a gun?
Maybe he’s 6’2″, 250 lbs while she’s 5’1″ and 130 lbs and is going to rely on his sheer brute force to attack her.
Or maybe he has a knife and is just going to stab her.
Of course, if she had what I call “The Great Equalizer” called a gun and already took gun training classes to learn how to shoot and can abide by the four rules of gun ownership, she wouldn’t necessarily have to live in fear, would she?
These restrictions sound great in theory. When applied to specific instances, though, they’re not so great.
The fact that you can list other objects that are extremely lethal if used improperly doesn’t change that fact. Just because you can accidentally drown in a bathtub doesn’t mean that an accidental firearms death isn’t caused by a weapon designed to kill.
You’re not getting it. As I said in my first comment, it doesn’t matter what these items were ‘designed’ for. Please go back to what I originally wrote:
But aside from that, who cares what these things were designed for? A kid dies accidentally in a pool, it doesn’t register with the media and we just consider it a tragic accident (despite the fact they number in the thousands each year). But if a child dies from an accidental gunshot wound? Look out. That’s going to make it to MSNBC and CNN.
I wonder why that is.
I am getting it, I did read your post and I am responding to your statement that “designed to kill” is a canard. Not the second part that you decided to post.
For a kid to accidentally drown in the pool example to have relevance you have to add qualifiers to make it equal. For instance, a level of negligence and law-breaking that the unsecured gun owner has. Maybe a pool owner didn’t have a fence and was next to a school and has caught kids swimming in his pool after school without permission and has received written warning from his town that he is legally required to have a fence. A pool at a hotel with a life guard on duty (posted) who left to flirt with a girl at the bar.
“Maybe he’s 6′2″, 250 lbs while she’s 5′1″ and 130 lbs and is going to rely on his sheer brute force to attack her.
Or maybe he has a knife and is just going to stab her.”
Maybe he will tie her to the railroad tracks as he twirls his handlebar mustache in a sinster way.
Honestly, I have no opinion on waiting periods. However, I find it amusing to see defense-against-domestic-abusers argument hauled out by gun rights advocates. ‘Pan, if we hunt up the stats on the number of women killed by spouses or boyfriends with handguns versus the number of women using a handgun to kill an attacker, what do you think the results would look like?
According to one of our great American thinkers, it has been done, Duros.
I stand corrected. My dad has one of those S&W .22′s.
‘Pan, if we hunt up the stats on the number of women killed by spouses or boyfriends with handguns versus the number of women using a handgun to kill an attacker, what do you think the results would look like?
What does this have to do with anything?
The fact that you can list other objects that are extremely lethal if used improperly doesn’t change that fact.
Indeed. Cars are not designed to kill, and yet they do.
“What does this have to do with anything?”
Nothing to do with bathtubs or “designed to kill.” G-pan hauled out the “What about abused women” argument against waiting periords. I find that argument transparently convenient. The protection offered to abused women by immediate access to firearms is outweighed by the potential for harm.
And now, a retraction:
“And thanks to the current Supreme Court, it’s a violation of her abuser’s rights to impose restrictions on his ability to buy a gun just because she has taken out a restraining order against him.”
This is statement is incorrect on a couple of accounts. I regret the errors.
I find that argument transparently convenient.
It’s no more or less transparent than the supposed “cooling off” rationale that is commonly used for waiting periods. Again, people hell bent on breaking the law anyway (want to shoot somebody) is not going to let a three day waiting period interfere with that.
The protection offered to abused women by immediate access to firearms is outweighed by the potential for harm.
In what way? You need to support such assertions.
“In what way? You need to support such assertions.”
I don’t have time to run laps with you today, Jay. “In what way,” is answered by the first comment you questioned: “if we hunt up the stats on the number of women killed by spouses or boyfriends with handguns versus the number of women using a handgun to kill an attacker, what do you think the results would look like?”
And you, of all people, bringing the “you need to support such assertions” dodge?
Haw!
Quaker, you don’t have time to run laps? I get dizzy reading your stuff because your use of circular reasoning. You’re reaching two conclusions and offering them as proofs of each other.
“More women are killed by spouses or boyfriends with guns than women who kill their attackers. We need waiting periods so less women are killed by their spouses or boyfriends.” The first part assumes truth and the second assumes such scenarios fit within that context. But it doesn’t hold up.
And you, of all people, bringing the “you need to support such assertions” dodge?
It’s not a dodge. Either you made a statement of fact which you should be able to back up, or you’re making an assumption which anybody can do.
There isn’t a single person who here has offered a rational explanation for their view on the supposed necessity for more restrictions on gun ownership. There’s a lot of appeal to emotion and the usual comments about “guns are designed for killing” and buzzwords like “sensible” and “reasonable.” Lots of sizzle, but no steak.
“You’re reaching two conclusions and offering them as proofs of each other.”
False. I’m reaching one conclusion and generously helping you understand its plain meaning.
Either you made a statement of fact which you should be able to back up, or you’re making an assumption which anybody can do.
Technically, I asked a question: “What do you think the numbers would look like?” But yeah, I have an opinion (which is neither a statement of fact nor an assumption) and I’ll cop to it–I believe the numbers would show lots of men killing women with guns and very few women killing men.
There isn’t a single person who here has offered a rational explanation for their view on the supposed necessity for more restrictions on gun ownership.
I for one would like to see fewer toddlers getting shot in the head. Is that rational enough for you?
False. I’m reaching one conclusion and generously helping you understand its plain meaning.
Conclusion 1: More (abusive) spouses and boyfriends shoot and kill women than women shoot and kill abusive spouses and boyfriends.
Conclusion 2: We need waiting periods to prevent more abusive spouses and boyfriends from killing more women.
You said, “The protection offered to abused women by immediate access to firearms is outweighed by the potential for harm.”
When I asked, “In what way” you referred back to conclusion one. Therefore, you reached two conclusions on relied on each to support the other. Even if conclusion 1 is true (though in order for a woman to defend herself, she doesn’t necessarily have to kill her abusive spouse or boyfriend), you have to prove that it’s the direct correlation of a state not having a waiting period to purchase a handgun.
The problem with “cooling off” periods are two-fold:
A. They’re put in place with the assumption that the only people who have an immediate need for a firearm are those who attempt to use the gun with harmful intent.
B. It assumes that a person enraged to the point of committing a violent crime is going to change his mind if he had to wait to obtain a firearm or that the person would not consider an alternative method or weapon to carry out that crime.
A. They’re put in place with the assumption that the only people who have an immediate need for a firearm are those who attempt to use the gun with harmful intent.
Would there be another logical reason why a person would have an immediate need for a firearm? Excluding invading hordes, of course. And even then, harmful intent is implied.
Would there be another logical reason why a person would have an immediate need for a firearm?
It’s called self defense.
If I’m in a situation that is determined (by me) to be deadly, do I really have the time to go to the gun store and buy a firearm, Jay? Really?
And even then, is not my intent to cause harm?
I don’t know. Maybe you do, maybe you don’t. But if you did and you were in a situation where you might have an immediate need to defend yourself, you’d probably be a little pissed that you have to wait 3-7 days to do so wouldn’t you?
Conclusion 2: We need waiting periods to prevent more abusive spouses and boyfriends from killing more women.
You apparently have me confused with someone else.
If there was an immediate need, 3-7 days wouldn’t make any difference. I either would already have a weapon or I wouldn’t. If I have the time to get in my car and drive to the gun store and select a firearm, take classes about its care and feeding and proper use, it would hardly be an immediate need, would it?
And even then, is not my intent to cause harm?
No. Having a gun for self defense does not imply intent to commit harm. Everybody operates under the assumption that in order to use a handgun for self defense, it requires that another person is shot and killed. Guess what? There are times when the mere sight of a handgun is going to cause the perp to run away.
If there was an immediate need, 3-7 days wouldn’t make any difference. I either would already have a weapon or I wouldn’t. If I have the time to get in my car and drive to the gun store and select a firearm, take classes about its care and feeding and proper use, it would hardly be an immediate need, would it?
Now you’re being pedantic. With your way of thinking, people should just be content to be victims. Besides, if not having a waiting period is useless anyway, why have one?
Duros: Would there be another logical reason why a person would have an immediate need for a firearm?
Jay: It’s called self defense.
If I have an immediate need for self defense, I don’t have time to go down to my local gun shop and get a gun.
I believe I understand what you’re getting at, and there certainly have been cases where a victim has had time between receiving a threat and being injured to take measures (such as arming themselves).
But people get mad, hurt, angry and if they can get a gun as readily as they can get a loaf of bread they may act on that. They can go off “half-cocked”, in a “fit of passion”, etc. If they have to wait a couple of days they have a chance to cool off, the situation has a little while to resolve.
To say we should get rid of waiting periods so the person who is scared (but not immediately, imminently facing a situation) can get a gun also allows the person who is mad (and is going to act immediately) to get a gun.
The far more likely result is more of exactly the situation you presumably want to avoid: bad person hurts good person.
The problem is Sean, in order for certain laws to have value, the state should show that it is necessary to do so. Waiting periods are nothing more than ‘feel good’ legislation that is passed as the result of one or two tragic incidents where a person was able to obtain a weapon without waiting and use it to kill or injure somebody. There’s no evidence whatsoever that shows waiting periods have had any affect on crime rates.
In addition, the 16-17 or states that have these waiting periods, most only apply to handguns. So if a guy was on a course to shoot his girlfriend or spouse, he could easily purchase a shotgun and do the job.
And again, the person who is hellbent on doing harm to another person is not going to allow a thing like a waiting period stop them. You have to understand that a waiting period is not some magic elixir that puts a person into a state that says, “I must wait 72 hours before I go and shoot that person.” If they’re that intent on doing harm, they’ll figure out a way. As is the case with most asinine gun laws, the laws don’t alleviate crime, they only make things more difficult for the law abiding citizen.
There are times when the mere sight of a handgun is going to cause the perp to run away.
Then a handgun replica is just as effective?
Of course, that’s true only if it’s the actual appearance of the gun that causes the “perp” to run away. I believe it’s actually the implied threat of being shot and killed that is the deterrent, don’t you?
Now you’re being pedantic. With your way of thinking, people should just be content to be victims. Besides, if not having a waiting period is useless anyway, why have one?
Not at all, Jay. You brought it up. We were talking about waiting periods for buying a gun. Buying a gun for self defense. Self defense as an immediate need of a gun. What I mean is that if peril is that imminent, what difference would 3 days make? I’m either in mortal danger now, or I’m not. And if I’m not, then there is no immediate need for a firearm.
If I already have a gun, your argument at least has merit.
Guess what? There are times when the mere sight of a handgun is going to cause the perp to run away.
Why would that be, Jay? Why would the “perp” run away? Could it be the threat of physical harm implied by me brandishing a weapon?
Not being pedantic, just askin’.
I think I get it too, Sean, but he did use the term “immediate.” Like NOW.
By its very definition, the sight of a gun can imply harm.
Of course, that’s true only if it’s the actual appearance of the gun that causes the “perp” to run away. I believe it’s actually the implied threat of being shot and killed that is the deterrent, don’t you?
Oh for God’s sake, does everything have to be spelled out in the smallest details? Yes Quaker, I didn’t mean that a person would see a gun and say, “Oh! A gun! I had better run!” They’re thinking more along the lines of, “Oh! A gun! I had better run away before I have a cap popped in my ass!”
Cripes.
By its very definition, the sight of a gun can imply harm.
Oh nonsense. So a buddy of mine shows me a new gun that he purchased and when he does, he’s implying harm?
Jay, at 2:34 p.m.: “Having a gun for self defense does not imply intent to commit harm.”
Jay, at 3:53 p.m.: “They’re thinking more along the lines of, ‘Oh! A gun! I had better run away before I have a cap popped in my ass!’”
That’s a mighty thin hair, Jay, but I know you can do it.
Oh nonsense. So a buddy of mine shows me a new gun that he purchased and when he does, he’s implying harm?
You should know this by now, Jay. Context is everything.
If you r buddy just whipped it out and pointed it at your head, what would your first reaction be? Honestly?
His new gun, I mean.
Jay: “You have to understand that a waiting period is not some magic elixir that puts a person into a state that says, “I must wait 72 hours before I go and shoot that person.””
Uh, actually that is exactly what a waiting period would do. Make you wait before you go and shoot a person.
Could you stab them? Club them? Strangle them? Sure. But you couldn’t shoot them.
A knife, baseball bat, rope, etc require that you get into physical contact with your victim. Can they be used to kill quickly and effectively? Of course. Can someone who has been shot still survive and even manage to overcome their attacker? Of course.
But shooting someone is one of the best ways to cause the greatest harm with the least effort and risk to yourself. I suspect that’s one of the reasons many people are interested in regulating access to guns.
If your buddy just whipped it out and pointed it at your head, what would your first reaction be? Honestly?
“Goldstein, is that you?”
ya lost me, QB.
Signing off for tonight.
Uh, actually that is exactly what a waiting period would do. Make you wait before you go and shoot a person.
No Sean, all it does is prevent them from legally purchasing a firearm for 72 hours (assuming they pass the background check).
Oh, Jay. Don’t make me go all Strowbridge on you.
Jay: “You have to understand that a waiting period is not some magic elixir that puts a person into a state that says, “I must wait 72 hours before I go and shoot that person.””
SDM: “Uh, actually that is exactly what a waiting period would do. Make you wait before you go and shoot a person.</i.”
Jay: “No Sean, all it does is prevent them from legally purchasing a firearm for 72 hours”
So first (rather floridly) you say a waiting period WON’T make someone say “I must wait.”. And then you say it DOES make them wait.
OK, if they are going to get the gun illegally they can bypass the waiting period. But that is significantly more difficult for most people than buying a gun at the local gun shop. So the existence of a waiting period DOES prevent the majority of people from getting a gun in the heat of the moment. Either because legally is the only way they really have to get a gun (I, for example, wouldn’t even know where to begin to try to get one illegally) or because getting one illegally takes more time (even if less then 72 hours) and effort.
“ya lost me, QB.”
Sorry, Duros. You ought to hang out over at Tbogg’s more often.
Of course, if I have to explain my joke it wasn’t funny in the first place, but here goes: Jeff Goldstein, proprietor of Protein Wisdom, wrote a post in which he said he’d like to slap some of his critics using a specific part of his anatomy. References to that post have become a running punchline at Tbogg.
Thus when you wrote: “If your buddy just whipped it out and pointed it at your head, what would your first reaction be?”
My reply was: “Goldstein, is that you?”
Oh, THAT Goldstein. Gotcha.
Yes I am familiar with that cobag.