Why is the average firearm owner, an unsafe gun owner?

[smb3802]

BTW...where did you derive that "fact" you claim?

From the definition and the facts behind statistical ownership of guns.

 

[RF667799]

Facts are facts. I am sorry you don’t like them. I am not saying that you in particular are unsafe with your guns. I am responding to the OP which asks a question. The answer to which is because most people who purchase guns do so for recreation. Objects purchased for recreation in the U.S. have a clear an obvious statistical bad safety record. Ergo that is why the average gun owner is unsafe with their weapons. You have not done anything except whine and cry about the underlying facts. You have done nothing to disprove the those facts. I am sorry you feel so vehemently opposed to simple facts. That is an issue with you not with the facts.

Tell me the statistics reference gun owners, since that is who we are discussing. You claim the statistics support your claim, let's see them.

 

[Lursa]

I am not here to be your secretary. Find and OED and look it up. As stated the definition is an object. I wouldn’t classify your dog, your friends or your horse as an object. Your parachute…unless you are professional parachutist would be a toy.

I see you avoided the purpose of the toy and esp. who toys are designed for. So you looked and were wrong. Dont get mad, but many people dont accept facile counterarguments (that arent even accurate)..they need more substance.

 

[RF667799]

From the definition and the facts behind statistical ownership of guns.

That won't support your claim that my guns are "toys" and thus I am unsafe with them.

 

[smb3802]

Tell me the statistics reference gun owners, since that is who we are discussing. You claim the statistics support your claim, let's see them.

Explained previously in the thread.

 

[RF667799]

What's hilarious about the toy argument, is that it would inform a conclusion that anyone who gives their child a toy is recklessly endangering that child.

 

[smb3802]

I see you avoided the purpose of the toy and esp. who the toy is designed for. So you looked and were wrong. Dont get mad, but many people dont accept facile counterarguments (that arent even accurate)..they need more substance.

I avoided nothing. I am not the one that apparently is mad about certain things being called toys if they are used for recreation. I also don’t include living beings as objects…maybe you do…I would feel sorry for your dog and horse.

 

[RF667799]

Explained previously in the thread.

You don't have any statistics supporting your claim.

Here's a statistic. Less than 500 gun owners are fatally injured in gun accidents per year. That's out of roughly 100 million gun owners. Many more millions of people who access and use guns while not being the nominal owner.

That statistic doesn't support your claim.

 

[RF667799]

I avoided nothing. I am not the one that apparently is mad about certain things being called toys if they are used for recreation. I also don’t include living beings as objects…maybe you do…I would feel sorry for your dog and horse.

And God forbid she give her dog a toy....

 

[smb3802]

What's hilarious about the toy argument, is that it would inform a conclusion that anyone who gives their child a toy is recklessly endangering that child.

Not everyone and not all toys. Do you often make such bs broad interpretations? There are many objects that are used for recreation that inherently benign in nature. I made no such sweeping claims. That is your nonsensical misinterpretation. There are however objects that are inherently dangerously even though they are classified as toys. Guns being one of them.

 

[Lursa]

I avoided nothing. I am not the one that apparently is mad about certain things being called toys if they are used for recreation. I also don’t include living beings as objects…maybe you do…I would feel sorry for your dog and horse.

I'm not mad...dont mischaracterize something you dont know...that's another facile attempt. Your post is empty of argument...it's only "na huh."

You should easily be able to source definitions for toy...you would prove me wrong if you could, right?

 

[Lursa]

And God forbid she give her dog a toy....

I guess he missed all those toy breeds out there...deliberately named so

 

[smb3802]

I'm not mad...dont mischaracterize something you dont know...that's another facile attempt. Your post is empty of argument...it's only "na huh."

You should easily be able to source definitions for toy...you would prove me wrong if you could, right?

I did source it. It comes from the OED. I was clear about that. I refuse to do your grunt work. Besides the OED is subscription only online.

 

[smb3802]

I guess he missed all those toy breeds out there...deliberately named so

That is a name given to the breed not description of what they are. That was obtuse.

 

[RF667799]

Not everyone and not all toys. Do you often make such bs broad interpretations? There are many objects that are used for recreation that inherently benign in nature. I made no such sweeping claims. That is your nonsensical misinterpretation. There are however objects that are inherently dangerously even though they are classified as toys. Guns being one of them.

OOOHHHH! You think you're going to slip in some special pleading.

You're also changing your argument, because you did make your claims of a general nature regarding gun owners and their "toys".

Where are those statistics that support those claims of yours? Seems like that might have been bluster.

 

[RF667799]

That is a name given to the breed not description of what they are. That was obtuse.

It's a name given to a breed because of what they are.

Whereas your application of "toy" to guns is giving a name with the intent of marginalizing certain people.

 

[jaeger19]

You don't know the studies done that show how you affect how fast someone drives with trees?

I don’t care to follow your rabbit holes .
I know that people don’t drive the speed limit despite it being a law. Which proves you can’t force people to be responsible.

Deal with it.

 

[jaeger19]

I thought it would be very simple for a former gunshop owner and policeman to understand

But maybe you're not either and you were telling lies

Well if it’s so easy why did you fail to explain?

 

[Lursa]

I did source it. It comes from the OED. I was clear about that. I refuse to do your grunt work. Besides the OED is subscription only online.

So you lied. Or chose to use a source I cant access. Like I wrote...if you could prove me wrong, you would.

 

[Lursa]

That is a name given to the breed not description of what they are. That was obtuse.

Obviously not to insult the dogs by referring to them as objects, as you attempted to do.

 

[jaeger19]

Facts are facts. I am sorry you don’t like them. I am not saying that you in particular are unsafe with your guns. I am responding to the OP which asks a question. The answer to which is because most people who purchase guns do so for recreation. Objects purchased for recreation in the U.S. have a clear an obvious statistical bad safety record. Ergo that is why the average gun owner is unsafe with their weapons. You have not done anything except whine and cry about the underlying facts. You have done nothing to disprove the those facts. I am sorry you feel so vehemently opposed to simple facts. That is an issue with you not with the facts.

That’s assuming facts not in evidence.

 

[smb3802]

OOOHHHH! You think you're going to slip in some special pleading.

You're also changing your argument, because you did make your claims of a general nature regarding gun owners and their "toys".

Where are those statistics that support those claims of yours? Seems like that might have been bluster.

BS. I am not changing anything. Your mischaracterization notwithstanding. Please post a quote where I said all toys were dangerous. I said no such thing. It is funny you feel the need to lie and try to "bluster" your way through the obvious facts. That statistically speaking most gun purchases...about 66% are purchases for recreation. It is also clear from statistics that using inherently dangerous objects that are for recreation i.e. toys is much more dangerous than when used professionally. I have to wonder why this is so contentious. It would seem it has struck nerve.

 

[smb3802]

So you lied. Or chose to use a source I cant access. Like I wrote...if you could prove me wrong, you would.

BS. I didn't lie. You can access if you a. have one on your bookshelf as I do...the compact edition. I don't have room for 20 volumes. b. you can pay for the online subscription. Assuming someone is lying just because are too lazy to do your own research is telling.

 

[smb3802]

And God forbid she give her dog a toy....

More inane jibberish.

 

[smb3802]

That’s assuming facts not in evidence.

The facts are in evidence. There have been countless studies on gun purchases. Most come to about the same level. Well over 60% of gun purchases are completed for recreational use.

Equal studies have revealed that higher rates of accidents occur during recreational use of objects. This is true of recreational marijuana use, backyard swimming pools etc. etc. The data is conclusive. The facts are there in study after study. Please avail yourself of some of them.