Why is it?

[MaggieD]

Why is it that we have tons of these PSAs showing the danger of certain dangerous and irresponsible activities, many of which are put on by the very companies selling products people use irresponsibly, but we do not have gun safety PSAs?

For instance, I have seen advertisements by verizon and AT&T telling people to stop texting and driving.
Every Alcohol advertisement I see on TV ends with drink responsibly and I have seen a ton of just straight up ads telling people not to drink and drive from alcohol distributors.
Yet do we see gun manufacturers saying do not play with guns. Do not point a firearm at people you are not threatening. make sure your gun is not loaded and ready to fire when you are not using it? Or even just make sure to shoot safely?

Why it is that in certain things I am forced to watch the unfortunate aftermath of other people's mistakes before i can do something?
In NY you have to take a driving class where they show the great blood on the highway movies. You need to go through this to get your license.
If you want an abortion you have to listen to the baby's heartbeat and have a time out to think about it.
again the cell phone companies and other organizations love to show the aftermath of accidents.
We have tons of these tobacco ads with people with amputations, cancer, and voiceboxes telling us to stop smoking.
I used to go to this place called action park and they had an alpine slide and right where you get on it were pictures of people horribly burned because they fell off their cart for acting stupid.

It seems that we cannot show the dangers firearms pose every day and show the aftermath of irresponsible behavior and mistakes with firearms. Is it because the gun lobby and industruy does not want to admit these things happen? Are they afraid of an honest representation of how mistakes with firearms shatter lives? If these PSAs and advertisements promoting responsibility have an effect why do we not see them plastered all over the place reminding people to take their firearms seriously? Why is it that i can purchase a gun without seeing some guy who shot his kid in the face come on and tell me not to screw up because i can never take it back like they do with so many other things? Shouldn't6 a person who uses guns be the first to want these things because they are the ones most in danger from a mistake from someone else? Shouldn't they be the ones insisting on these warnings because it might make their recreations safer and lower incidents which ruin their reputation and lives?

I think that's a very fair question. I don't know the answer.

 

[Threegoofs]

what stupidity. Fingerprint activated, LOL, a light that indicates there is a bullet in the chamber

this sort of inane arguments are why we see gun "safety" advocates as people not to be taken seriously since they have no clue and their goal is to make almost every existing gun illegal. Guns are very safe if used properly. They can take all sorts of abuse and not blow up etc.

Yes. Its so stupid to have safety mechanisms on firearms.

How many times have you heard of an accidental discharge because someone "didnt know it was loaded" or "it went off when I was cleaning it"? An indicator light would be useful for all the bozos that dont check the chamber. I bet they dont publish those stories in American Rifleman. But you know damn well they happen a lot.Present company excepted though, because its clear you are a responsible upstanding gun owner who is as upstanding as St. Smith and St. Wesson.


Fingerprint technology to allow only the owner to fire/unlock the gun? That exists.
Safe Gun Technology | Where Freedom Meets Safety


But my argument, I notice, you deftly step over to so as to go on the attack.

The core of the argument is that there are no PSAs BECAUSE GUN MANUFACTURERS ARE EXEMPT FROM LIABILITY.

Heres an article explaining the implications, from the J Public Health (you know, those nutty people who actually think about the health of the public)

Availability of Litigation as a Public Health Tool for Firearm Injury Prevention: Comparison of Guns, Vaccines, and Motor Vehicles

 

[Tigger]

Why do you think basic safety measures don't exist on guns? A light that indicates a bullet in the chamber? A safety that doesn't allow firing when a magazine is removed? Trigger locks built in, or fingerprint activated?

Two of those things already exist on all new firearms here in the Communistwealth of Massachusetts. A loaded chamber indicator (not a light, but a hole that allows one to see the casing in the chamber and the magazine disconnect safety are required on all new firearms sold here and have been for a number of years. You know what, neither one of them makes anyone any safer.

I'm not sure how you'd suggest they build a "built in trigger lock", but the fingerprint activation concept has been considered. It was called "SmartGun" technology, and even states like Maryland and New York have realized that it is not a practical technology at this time, nor is it likely to be at any time in the near future.

 

[tech30528]

Why don't you see gun PSAs?

Simple.

Because gun manufacturers are protected from liability by Congress.

Why do you think basic safety measures don't exist on guns? A light that indicates a bullet in the chamber? A safety that doesn't allow firing when a magazine is removed? Trigger locks built in, or fingerprint activated?

You need to get a clue. Three of my 4 pistols have a chambered round indicator, those would be a Glock, a Walther, and a JA. The Walther and the JA and will not fire without a magazine inserted, nor will my Colt. The trigger mechanism is completed by the magazine. The Walther and the Colt have a manual trigger safety, the Glock has a double trigger. The first thing I learned when taking a marksmanship course was safety. I am an instructor now, and nobody is even allowed to bring a cased rifle to my firing line until we have reviewed safety procedures. People who actually shoot are awash in safety information. It doesn't do any good to run PSAs during Honey Booboo or whatever cartoons anti gun people are watching, it would just confuse them. The problem is not that there are not enough mechanical safeties or enough training available, it's the lack of respect for life by people who use them for nefarious reasons. It's pretty clear when you see some Chicago kid holding his "gat" sideways that he didn't read the instructions or practice with it. The sights are on the top and most semi autos eject to the side. If you hold it right handed sideways that empty round is going to eject straight up in to your sight picture. You're doing it wrong.

Once again, it isn't the legal gun owners who are lacking information, it is those who don't own/ use/ practice with them that haven't got a clue.

 

[Harshaw]

How many times have you heard of an accidental discharge because someone "didnt know it was loaded" or "it went off when I was cleaning it"?

Not very many.

An indicator light would be useful for all the bozos that dont check the chamber.

I doubt it would help those who don't bother to check as it is, and it's an unnecessary expense for everyone else.

But you know damn well they happen a lot.

Then you should have no trouble establishing exactly how often, with verifiable hard data.

The core of the argument is that there are no PSAs BECAUSE GUN MANUFACTURERS ARE EXEMPT FROM LIABILITY.

They're not exempt from negligence or design flaws.

Availability of Litigation as a Public Health Tool for Firearm Injury Prevention: Comparison of Guns, Vaccines, and Motor Vehicles

A bunch of people who want to impose judicially what they can't get done legislatively. If you care about the proper function of a democratic republic, you should be opposed to this. Of course, if a single policy goal is more important than that larger principle, perhaps it isn't a problem for you.

 

[opendebate]

that's the problem-the irrationality of the anti gun side that doesn't believe that guns can be used safely. THe more one smokes or drinks, the more likely one is to be harmed by cigarettes or booze. The more one shoots lawfully, no such risk. I think most on the anti gun side pretend they are about public safety but since the vast majority of them identify as being socialist, progressive or liberal, its about political attack, not public safety

Painting with a wide brush as usual and exaggerating intent as usual. If you are saying that I said guns can't be used safely...you completely changed the meaning of my post. Show some self control please.

If you are capable of having a rational conversation with someone who may think differently than you try again, if just wanted to do a drive by ....don't bother.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Painting with a wide brush as usual and exaggerating intent as usual. If you are saying that I said guns can't be used safely...you completely changed the meaning of my post. Show some self control please.

If you are capable of having a rational conversation with someone who may think differently than you try again, if just wanted to do a drive by ....don't bother.

Its not rational to wish to infringe on the rights of fellow Americans. So you start being rational, and we will to.

 

[TurtleDude]

Painting with a wide brush as usual and exaggerating intent as usual. If you are saying that I said guns can't be used safely...you completely changed the meaning of my post. Show some self control please.

If you are capable of having a rational conversation with someone who may think differently than you try again, if just wanted to do a drive by ....don't bother.

rational thought is often a rare commodity when dealing with the far left gun haters

you see, if you believe restricting honest people will actually have a major deterrence upon those who violate substantive laws, you are not a rational thinker but delusional or ignorant

and if you claim those laws will when you don't really believe it, then you are even worse-you are dishonest

there really is no way to be a fan of the Current Democratic Party schemes and be able to be taken seriously on the subject

 

[AngryOldGuy]

you see lil kiddies, we are blessed and fortunate enough to have been lucky enough to be born in this 1st world country
if we were in a lawless uncivilized society wherein you had to actually defend yourselves to survive, the limp wristed libbies would get pwned

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

George Orwell

 

[AngryOldGuy]

you see, if you believe restricting honest people will actually have a major deterrence upon those who violate substantive laws, you are not a rational thinker but delusional or ignorant

The current Demorat Regime is a far greater threat to your pursuit of happiness than any common criminal.

 

[Goshin]

The NRA has attempted to make the Eddie Eagle gun safety program available to any elementary school that wants it... but despite the fact that it is a proven-effective program, many schools turn up their nose because... it's the NRA.

 

[Kobie]

The current Demorat Regime is a far greater threat to your pursuit of happiness than any common criminal.

Do you post anything that isn't some talking point straight from Rush or Hannity?

 

[TurtleDude]

The NRA has attempted to make the Eddie Eagle gun safety program available to any elementary school that wants it... but despite the fact that it is a proven-effective program, many schools turn up their nose because... it's the NRA.

sadly dead children advance the agenda of the anti gun scum bag brigade in congress and the fund raising of grim weepers like Sarah Brady and the detestable Josh Sugarmann

 

[TurtleDude]

Do you post anything that isn't some talking point straight from Rush or Hannity?

truth tends to have many sources. amazingly, its the left that tends to idolize Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity and tend to claim to know everything those two entertainers say

 

[Moot]

The NRA has attempted to make the Eddie Eagle gun safety program available to any elementary school that wants it... but despite the fact that it is a proven-effective program, many schools turn up their nose because... it's the NRA.

So the NRA has a bad reputation now, eh? Gee, I can't imagine why when their solution to everything is just more guns. However I did agree with LaPierre that society should start focusing on the mentally ill...but then the NRA blocked background checks for them, too.

 

[CRUE CAB]

you see lil kiddies, we are blessed and fortunate enough to have been lucky enough to be born in this 1st world country
if we were in a lawless uncivilized society wherein you had to actually defend yourselves to survive, the limp wristed libbies would get pwned

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

George Orwell

Well there is Chicago. LOL

 

[CRUE CAB]

So the NRA has a bad reputation now, eh? Gee, I can't imagine why when their solution to everything is just more guns. However I did agree with LaPierre that society should start focusing on the mentally ill...but then the NRA blocked background checks for them, too.

More guns in the right hands. Do your due diligence and read all what LaPerreir had to say.

 

[opendebate]

rational thought is often a rare commodity when dealing with the far left gun haters

You assume I am a gun hater because I am a Progressive. I'm not. I don't want innocent people to die either by accident from a gun owner or intentionally in any other way. But, I will admit, I put saving those lives before your right to keep a gun. I just think it comes down to one extreme or another.

there really is no way to be a fan of the Current Democratic Party schemes and be able to be taken seriously on the subject

As long you continue to promote partisan bickering without a hint of so much as listening to an opposing view without name calling, you are just a part of the problem.

 

[TurtleDude]

You assume I am a gun hater because I am a Progressive. I'm not. I don't want innocent people to die either by accident from a gun owner or intentionally in any other way. But, I will admit, I put saving those lives before your right to keep a gun. I just think it comes down to one extreme or another.




As long you continue to promote partisan bickering without a hint of so much as listening to an opposing view without name calling, you are just a part of the problem.

that is a false dichotomy. do you put saving lives ahead of

1) speed limits above 25 MPH

2) innocent until proven guilty

3) the right against self incrimination or coerced confessions

4) swimming pools, football, baseball, hang gliding, private planes and marathon running

5) publicly supplied attorneys

6) reasonable bail

see there are lots of rights you can curtail that would actually save more lies than attempting to restrict the rights of those who currently can legally own guns.

 

[Moot]

More guns in the right hands. Do your due diligence and read all what LaPerreir had to say.

Stop trying to control people.

 

[Harshaw]

You assume I am a gun hater because I am a Progressive. I'm not. I don't want innocent people to die either by accident from a gun owner or intentionally in any other way. But, I will admit, I put saving those lives before your right to keep a gun. I just think it comes down to one extreme or another.

Freedom is worth lives. That is the very foundational premise upon which the country was founded.

 

[Thrilla]

a PSA on guns?..... why?

I mean i know information is soo hard to come by nowadays... not like it was in the 50's when we had the internet and tons of information at our fingertips 24/7.. nope those days are gone.. all this stuff about basic proper gun handling is a big secret now, kept under lock and key...secured by a password only a decoder ring can decipher.


come on people... lack of information is NOT the problem.

 

[Thrilla]

You assume I am a gun hater because I am a Progressive. I'm not. I don't want innocent people to die either by accident from a gun owner or intentionally in any other way. But, I will admit, I put saving those lives before your right to keep a gun. I just think it comes down to one extreme or another.




As long you continue to promote partisan bickering without a hint of so much as listening to an opposing view without name calling, you are just a part of the problem.

I don't know anyone who wants to see innocent people die.. so you can lay that bull**** to rest... you aren't special in that regard.


it's ok though...I put my safety , and that of my family,above yours or anyone else's.... but none of this has to direct oppose each other.
unfortunately, you and the democratic party seem to believe it's either save lives or "let" us have guns... a classic either/or fallacy, writ large.

 

[TurtleDude]

a PSA on guns?..... why?

I mean i know information is soo hard to come by nowadays... not like it was in the 50's when we had the internet and tons of information at our fingertips 24/7.. nope those days are gone.. all this stuff about basic proper gun handling is a big secret now, kept under lock and key...secured by a password only a decoder ring can decipher.


come on people... lack of information is NOT the problem.

it is a common problem for most of the sheeple who support gun control schemes

 

[Starbuck]

So the NRA has a bad reputation now, eh? Gee, I can't imagine why when their solution to everything is just more guns. However I did agree with LaPierre that society should start focusing on the mentally ill...but then the NRA blocked background checks for them, too.

The NRA has made a mockery about gun rights, but they do have a good point when it comes to blocking background checks/ screening for mental illness.

I think that is a bit of a fuzzy line, and who really gets to determine where to actually set the limit on gun ownership, along mental illness lines?