Why is it?

[jamesrage]

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 the huge vast majority of the 70-80 million plus firearm owners and their families are responsible and know that guns can be dangerous. Someone who buys a hammer doesn't need to see a picture of someone's brains bashed in, nor does someone who buys a knife need to see a picture of a stabbing victim. If gun owners were not responsible then the close to 16,000 non-fatal firearm accidents and around 600 fatal firearm accidents would be way much higher.


I do support public service commercials telling kids to not touch a firearm without adult supervision, to report a unsecured firearm to an adult, don't point firearms at other people, and maybe the occasional ad reminding gun owners to teach proper firearm safety to their kids and to keep firearms out of their reach. After all we tell kids to not talk to strangers, don't run with scissors, don't do drugs and so on. As far as I know there is nothing is stopping anyone from running these types of ads on tv. The NRA doesn't give two ****s if you run a firearm safety ad. If you do it with out trying to preach some anti-2nd amendment bull **** and you keep the anti-2nd amendment groups like the Mayors against illegal guns IE Mayors against the 2nd amendment and the Brady campaign away from these ads then I think you can reach people and most people will not have a problem with those ads.

 

[Starbuck]

The courts don't seem to have a problem making that determination.

Perhaps, but that wasn't my point.

The question to ask here, is what would be the determining line for when someone could/ could not own a firearm. In the courts eyes, would that be someone with any level of depression or what about ADD?

Should a person with Bipolar 1, who is medicated be able to own a firearm, what about anxiety disorder?

The problem with letting the courts, or any group run by humans, decide which people (specifically) are not allowed to own guns based upon some marginally understood label is that it will be impossible to fairly enforce. I see this in the same way that I see peoples access to things like Marijuana, voting or hotel rooms.

I wouldn't want the court to someday decide me out of access to voting any more than I'd like them to decide me out of owning a gun or smoking weed (if that was something I was interested in).

I've already felt what it's like to have a local court/ legislature decide me out of a hotel room. . . pretty lame, as I was a member of the military being relocated across the country to a new duty station and couldn't legally get a hotel room anywhere in the greater St. Louis area.

 

[Starbuck]

IF one party had not adopted gun restrictions on honest people as a strategy to cover up that party's weakness in dealing with inner city crime, the politicization of the NRA never would have happened. If the FDR courts would have struck down the clearly unconstitutional efforts of the federal government to regulate firearms, I suspect the NRA would have remained mostly an organization sponsoring competitions etc

Like I've said, it's a damned if you do. . . damned if you don't.

I really hate what the NRA has become, honestly. But I am also keenly aware that without their efforts the firearm in my bedroom wouldn't be there.

For me this might not be much of a personal tragedy, I've kind of vowed off shooting people/ things, but on a national level I think this would be a huge tragedy. A tragedy for firearms (obviously), but also a tragedy for personal liberty, one of the key tenants of our country.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Have you been to Florida?

The conversation always seems to go into the weeds as this point to me. If one thing causes 1000 deaths and another causes 600 who cares!? That doesn't mean you drop speculating about how to keep those 600 from being lost just because the number is lower.

Its called the Stand Your Ground law. An off shoot of the castle doctrine allowing people to defend themselves without having to run away.
Dont threaten people and you will not be endangered.

 

[Starbuck]

Yes I live here and it is not legal to endanger someone's life unless you are defending yourself from a threat to life and limb. It's called "reckless endangerment" among other types as well.

I would argue that Florida has proven, willful murder to be on the list of acceptable behavior, but that's another thread.

Florida is a bad example for any gun-rights advocate to use.

 

[CRUE CAB]

For me this might not be much of a personal tragedy, I've kind of vowed off shooting people/ things, .

Define "vowed off shooting people". Not even in the defense of your home and family?

 

[Starbuck]

Its called the Stand Your Ground law.

From a pro-gun rights prospective, this is a case that should not be heralded as a paragon of things working well. The application of that law has, in my mind is not something the State of Florida has done well. Especially on the national spotlight.

 

[CRUE CAB]

I would argue that Florida has proven, willful murder to be on the list of acceptable behavior, but that's another thread.

Florida is a bad example for any gun-rights advocate to use.

Wrong, its a perfect example. The event your are beating around the bush about, the man was found not guilty in a court of law.
We are happy with our laws. Threaten our families or selves and you may pay a price. As it should be.

 

[CRUE CAB]

From a pro-gun rights prospective, this is a case that should not be heralded as a paragon of things working well. The application of that law has, in my mind is not something the State of Florida has done well. Especially on the national spotlight.

Then dont live in Florida.

 

[Starbuck]

Define "vowed off shooting people". Not even in the defense of your home and family?

Statistically speaking, the odds of me or my wife needing to discharge a firearm in self defense, especially in our home, are so infinitesimally small that I don't consider it realistic. We don't lock our doors, haven't for the past decade.

Sure someone could walk in over night and try to do us harm, but for that I have my ASP sitting next to my headboard. For any situation where that would be inadequate, we accept the risk and are fatalistic like that. I don't especially want to take the life of another, if it is at all avoidable. Most home invasions don't result in deaths, why would I want to escalate things?

Thing is, my wife, as a female is more likely to need that firearm out in public when she is alone, than I am.

 

[Starbuck]

Wrong, its a perfect example. The event your are beating around the bush about, the man was found not guilty in a court of law.
We are happy with our laws. Threaten our families or selves and you may pay a price. As it should be.

Not all court rulings are created equal, and not all defense/ prosecution teams are worth a salt. Casey Anthony anyone?

Sure the gavel has fallen and it is what it is, but as a person who is wildly pro-gun, I can safely say that the George Zimmerman/ Travon Martin case was not a good day for gun rights.

Then dont live in Florida.

The weather it seems, would be a bigger deterrent for me.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Not all court rulings are created equal, and not all defense/ prosecution teams are worth a salt. Casey Anthony anyone?

Sure the gavel has fallen and it is what it is, but as a person who is wildly pro-gun, I can safely say that the George Zimmerman/ Travon Martin case was not a good day for gun rights.



The weather it seems, would be a bigger deterrent for me.

Thank god for the heat and humidity. May get some "skeeters" but keeps the yankees at bay.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Statistically speaking, the odds of me or my wife needing to discharge a firearm in self defense, especially in our home, are so infinitesimally small that I don't consider it realistic. We don't lock our doors, haven't for the past decade.

Sure someone could walk in over night and try to do us harm, but for that I have my ASP sitting next to my headboard. For any situation where that would be inadequate, we accept the risk and are fatalistic like that. I don't especially want to take the life of another, if it is at all avoidable. Most home invasions don't result in deaths, why would I want to escalate things?

Thing is, my wife, as a female is more likely to need that firearm out in public when she is alone, than I am.

And that asp is a great weapon, till you wake up to a gun pressed to your forehead.
And I can name a few home invasions that ended up much worse than the silver being stolen.
Just ask the Doctor in New England about that. Here, not too many years ago. An elderly woman was duct taped to her easy chair, then set on fire to cover the rape.
She was alive until she choked do death on the smoke from the chair that she was bound to.
But you keep acting like it dont happen or cant happen to you. Hope it works out.

 

[Starbuck]

Thank god for the heat and humidity. May get some "skeeters" but keeps the yankees at bay.

That's probably a very accurate statement.

I'll go there, or anywhere, for a visit, but to live it's not going to happen.

 

[Black Dog]

I would argue that Florida has proven, willful murder to be on the list of acceptable behavior, but that's another thread.

If you are talking Zimmerman, he was found not guilty. So that is not wanton murder.

Florida is a bad example for any gun-rights advocate to use.

Why? Because we can defend ourselves anyplace? Like many other states? Because we have SYG laws like many other states? Because we have a lower murder rate than Chicago or DC? Oh wait...

 

[Starbuck]

And that asp is a great weapon, till you wake up to a gun pressed to your forehead.

I agree about the ASP, especially with adequate training.

For the off scenario where a gun is pressed to my head, I've gone through some extensive gun removal/ retention training. . .which may work. However, I'm also aware that I might just as well die in that scenario. Personally, and this a view my wife shares, this is a risk we are willing to take.

We've done a pretty good job at not being the sort of people targeted by that sort of stuff though, we don't have flashy cars or expensive gadgets. Hell, our television is hidden by local artwork most of the time. The only thing of value that we "own" are the laptops and a couple cool antiques.

So with that in mind, I'm more likely going to die on the way to work in a few moments (knocks on table) and would rather not take the risk of escalating an otherwise non-violent robbery into a murder scene.

If someone wants to take our stuff, let them. . . I've never felt that robbery should carry a death sentence.

 

[CRUE CAB]

I agree about the ASP, especially with adequate training.

For the off scenario where a gun is pressed to my head, I've gone through some extensive gun removal/ retention training. . .which may work. However, I'm also aware that I might just as well die in that scenario. Personally, and this a view my wife shares, this is a risk we are willing to take.

We've done a pretty good job at not being the sort of people targeted by that sort of stuff though, we don't have flashy cars or expensive gadgets. Hell, our television is hidden by local artwork most of the time. The only thing of value that we "own" are the laptops and a couple cool antiques.

So with that in mind, I'm more likely going to die on the way to work in a few moments (knocks on table) and would rather not take the risk of escalating an otherwise non-violent robbery into a murder scene.

If someone wants to take our stuff, let them. . . I've never felt that robbery should carry a death sentence.

Iam just shaking my head. No need to comment further.

 

[Starbuck]

If you are talking Zimmerman, he was found not guilty. So that is not wanton murder.

Like I've already said, the gavel has fallen and no one is arguing that.

However, not all rulings are created equal. As a former LEO and military member, I was disgusted with the ruling, but it's over.

I just wouldn't (and don't) as a gun-rights advocate, use that as my shining example. In fact, I try to write that off as another statistically unlikely scenario.

Why? Because we can defend ourselves anyplace? Like many other states? Because we have SYG laws like many other states? Because we have a lower murder rate than Chicago or DC? Oh wait...

I'm all for standing your ground, I think they are commonsense laws.

However, I don't think that Florida has a good track record. Murder and attacking someone don't count as stand your ground, sorry that's just the way it is.

And as far as murder rates go, most murderers (DC, Chicago, or anywhere) kill people they already know.

 

[Starbuck]

Iam just shaking my head. No need to comment further.

There's no need to comment further, that's just how we see things.

It's a personal (and shared philosophy), I don't half expect anyone else to feel the same way.

 

[CRUE CAB]

If you are talking Zimmerman, he was found not guilty. So that is not wanton murder.



Why? Because we can defend ourselves anyplace? Like many other states? Because we have SYG laws like many other states? Because we have a lower murder rate than Chicago or DC? Oh wait...

Standing your ground, fighting back, not running away like a scared child and not waiting for the government to come save you is beyond their comprehension.
How many threads do we need to prove that.

 

[CRUE CAB]

There's no need to comment further, that's just how we see things.

It's a personal (and shared philosophy), I don't half expect anyone else to feel the same way.

I would not expect my wife to see me as any kind of man that would not kill and or die for her in a heart beat. Its a personal philosophy.

 

[Starbuck]

I would not expect my wife to see me as any kind of man that would not kill and or die for her in a heart beat. Its a personal philosophy.

Thing is, my wife is also a veteran, who honestly shot better than I did.

We are both tough people who would kill for each other, but only if absolutely necessary. I just don't see it as a realistic consideration, that someone would enter out house at night and have a reason to kill us, beyond defense of our "stuff." If it comes down to me taking a life or someone taking my stuff, hell take my television, I'll buy another one.

We are both, tough in the classic sense, but we are also realistic.

 

[Black Dog]

Like I've already said, the gavel has fallen and no one is arguing that.

However, not all rulings are created equal. As a former LEO and military member, I was disgusted with the ruling, but it's over.

As a former LEO and military member I was relieved at the verdict. To each his own.

I just wouldn't (and don't) as a gun-rights advocate, use that as my shining example. In fact, I try to write that off as another statistically unlikely scenario.

Agreed. This does not however make Florida overall a bad example. This was one case and in my humble, it was just politically motivated nonsense. As you say though that is another thread.

I'm all for standing your ground, I think they are commonsense laws.

Agreed.

However, I don't think that Florida has a good track record. Murder and attacking someone don't count as stand your ground, sorry that's just the way it is.

I absolutely disagree because the evidence does not support it in my opinion. We can just agree to disagree on that.

And as far as murder rates go, most murderers (DC, Chicago, or anywhere) kill people they already know.

I am not certain what that has to do with it?

 

[BretJ]

Have you been to Florida?

The conversation always seems to go into the weeds as this point to me. If one thing causes 1000 deaths and another causes 600 who cares!? That doesn't mean you drop speculating about how to keep those 600 from being lost just because the number is lower.

I live in Florida so I am not sure what that is intended to imply. Illegal brandishment of a fire arm is illegal. Reckless endangerment with a firearm is illegal. No different than DUI or wreckless endangerment while under the influence. Over 1,000,000 CCW holders in this state and all statistics show that CCW holders are more trustworthy/law abiding than the general population. Millions more own firearms without issue. Yet how many people wrecklessly endanger others by driving after "just a couple beers"?

The issue is when the solutions revolve around assuming everyone is a potential mass shooter and treating them that way. As we have seen with the Navy Yard shooting, all the rules/regulations and laws are worth absolute squat in preventing criminal use of a firearm unless followed up upon by those responsible for enforcing/following the damn laws already in place. Everyone in his chain of events had the opportunity to prevent him from ever legally obtaining a firearm. But they did not because they did not want to step on someones toes.

Do not get me wrong, I want to see laws that would actually prevent what happened from happening. The laws are already there. But the majority of laws being proposed are feel good regulations designed to give the appearance of solving a problem. Freedom is assuming someone is responsible until proven otherwise.

 

[BretJ]

I agree about the ASP, especially with adequate training.

For the off scenario where a gun is pressed to my head, I've gone through some extensive gun removal/ retention training. . .which may work. However, I'm also aware that I might just as well die in that scenario. Personally, and this a view my wife shares, this is a risk we are willing to take.

We've done a pretty good job at not being the sort of people targeted by that sort of stuff though, we don't have flashy cars or expensive gadgets. Hell, our television is hidden by local artwork most of the time. The only thing of value that we "own" are the laptops and a couple cool antiques.

So with that in mind, I'm more likely going to die on the way to work in a few moments (knocks on table) and would rather not take the risk of escalating an otherwise non-violent robbery into a murder scene.

If someone wants to take our stuff, let them. . . I've never felt that robbery should carry a death sentence.

I agree with you on principle if that is the only risk. Robbery does carry a "being shot" sentence if it involves a threat of bodily harm to me or my family in order to rob me....I am not a mind reader. If you are in my home, or present a weapon or threat in order to rob me, of course I will assume the worst and justifiably so. A co-workers family was murdered by some folks who thought they had more money than what they really did. From what I was told, they were passive and compliant.