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

[Noodlegawd]

There's no easy way to say this but the average gun owner in the US is not safe with their guns. Or at least, a large minority of American gun owners are not able safe with their firearms owners. Despite having millions of guns in the country, the average gun owner is not safe with them. What I mean by gun owners are not safe is three separate things;

1. They do not store their firearms safely. It's estimated more than half of gun owners do not properly store their firearms in a locked safe when not in use.

Survey: More Than Half of U.S. Gun Owners Do Not Safely Store Their Guns | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

More than half of gun owners do not safely store all their guns, according to a new survey of 1,444 U.S. gun owners conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

publichealth.jhu.edu

2. They do not store their ammo separately from their firearms when not in use. Almost half of gun owners do not keep their ammo separate from their firearms when not in use.

43% of U.S. Households Store Loaded Guns

About half of U.S. households that keep their firearms loaded do not store them in locked containers, a new CDC study found.

www.campussafetymagazine.com

The idea that, in order to be "safe," firearms must in all cases be locked up or stored separately from ammunition, is complete nonsense.

3. They do not understand the actual risks of owning firearms. The simple fact of the matter is you're more likely to die if you have a firearm in the household than if you don't. Those who think that guns are used for personal defense against an intruder don't seem to realize they're more likely to die from an intimate partner killing them with a firearm.

Owning Guns Puts People in Your Home at Greater Risk of Being Killed, New Study Shows

A new study shows that people living in homes with guns face substantially higher risks of being fatally assaulted.

time.com

While these are simple examples, the thing is that I don't think I've met a single person here on DP that knows and takes into all three of these points. That's the thing, I'm safely using firearms by not having any in my household. That being said I want to know why does the average gun owner think they're safe with firearms, when there's a good chance they are not actually safe with their firearms?

How many of the 2300 people in the study who were murdered were gang members or otherwise regularly involved in crime, or related to them?

 

[soylentgreen]

1. Well why not? Why is it only a firearm that engenders this so called “ right to kill”. . The vast majority of martial artists train for self defense. Do they then believe they have a right to kill. ? A person that puts a ball bat next to their door for self defense. A women who hears someone breaking into her house and grabs a knife from the kitchen and hides in the bathroom. Does she believe she has a “ right to kill.

You're right. It is not the gun. Never was. The irony of it all that in the gun debate is that the gun is of little importance. What is important and really all that matters is the intent. The belief in a right to kill. When it truly is self defense then there may be good reason to take a life. But america has a problem of ideology rather than specifically a gun problem. Basically in that you have a right to buy a gun for the specific purpose of killing a person.

2. No. In New Zealand you have the right to use lethal force if it’s deemed reasonable.
It’s no different here in the states.

That you have a right to use lethal force. No such right exists in nz.

3. Yes. The elderly man in NZ has the right to use his firearm to kill another if it’s reasonable to stop a deadly threat.

No that is in america. In nz he would be in court having to explain why he had a gun ready and loaded to kill when that is against the law. Unless of course your scenario includes a very polite murderer who kindly waits for the grandad to unlock the gun safe and then unlock the bullet safe and then load the gun.

Here’s one from New Zealand and frankly this one is sketchy. A good chance he would be convicted in the states. Yet your fellow New Zealanders set him free on self defense.

Farmer walks free after fatally shooting intruder - NZ Herald

Stay updated on the latest crime news, police investigations and court cases with NZ Herald. Explore stories that matter in law and order

www.nzherald.co.nz

Why would he have been convicted in the states? Here it is always a matter of a jury conviction. Just a sit would be in america
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/can-you-shoot-an-unarmed-attacker/

Are you legally allowed to shoot an unarmed attacker in self-defense? As with most questions dealing with deadly force, there is no clear-cut answer on whether or not you can shoot someone who is unarmed.

 

[jaeger19]

You're right. It is not the gun. Never was. The irony of it all that in the gun debate is that the gun is of little importance. What is important and really all that matters is the intent. The belief in a right to kill. When it truly is self defense then there may be good reason to take a life. But america has a problem of ideology rather than specifically a gun problem. Basically in that you have a right to buy a gun for the specific purpose of killing a person.


That you have a right to use lethal force. No such right exists in nz.


No that is in america. In nz he would be in court having to explain why he had a gun ready and loaded to kill when that is against the law. Unless of course your scenario includes a very polite murderer who kindly waits for the grandad to unlock the gun safe and then unlock the bullet safe and then load the gun.

Why would he have been convicted in the states? Here it is always a matter of a jury conviction. Just a sit would be in america
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/can-you-shoot-an-unarmed-attacker/

1. Yeah no. According to your logic martial artists believe they have the right to kill, police officers believe they have the right to kill, someone who leaves a bat by their door for self defense believes they have a right to kill.

that’s absurd. The intent is to be able to defend oneself. Period.
Yes
2. Yes. You have the right to use lethal force in NZ if it’s reasonable just like in the states. It’s just a fact.

3. No that is in America to. If you kill someone in self defense there is an investigation to determine if your actions were reasonable . If it’s determined that they may not have been , then you go to trial. Same in New Zealand.

4. No its not always a manner of jury trial

Christchurch murder charge dropped on grounds of self-defence​

Christchurch murder charge dropped on grounds of self-defence

A murder charge against a man accused of stabbing a 22-year-old to death at the Christchurch men's night shelter on March 10 has been dropped.

www.odt.co.nz

Sorry man you are wrong.

 

[rahl]

And that is all you can do, make a false accusation and hope it sticks.

I have proven you are lying.

No such law exists here.

This is a proven lie. I just gave you the law.

Yes, and all you do is repeat a few words and pretend they mean the same.

I cited the law saying you have the right to kill in new Zealand.

Nothing in that link backs what you say.

Proven lie.

 

[soylentgreen]

1. Yeah no. According to your logic martial artists believe they have the right to kill, police officers believe they have the right to kill, someone who leaves a bat by their door for self defense believes they have a right to kill.

Not at all. I have not once argued that a person should not own a gun. Just not treat it as if it gives a right to kill. Same with martial arts.

that’s absurd. The intent is to be able to defend oneself. Period.

That is the legal intent. But is it the personal belief? In that you cannot speak for any but yourself. But we can point to the actions of americans with guns that tell us not all americans care about the legal intent.

Yes
2. Yes. You have the right to use lethal force in NZ if it’s reasonable just like in the states. It’s just a fact.

True, no argument against that. What we do not have is a legal right to own a weapon for the purposeful use of self defense.

e
3. No that is in America to. If you kill someone in self defense there is an investigation to determine if your actions were reasonable . If it’s determined that they may not have been , then you go to trial. Same in New Zealand.

Yet you have laws that allow for the use of lethal defense. We do not.

4. No its not always a manner of jury trial

Christchurch murder charge dropped on grounds of self-defence​

Christchurch murder charge dropped on grounds of self-defence

A murder charge against a man accused of stabbing a 22-year-old to death at the Christchurch men's night shelter on March 10 has been dropped.

www.odt.co.nz

Sorry man you are wrong.

My argument is not that such things happen in my or other countries. The argument is that in america you not only have laws that allow for the use of lethal force but you also have a an ideology odf using lethal force in self defense.

 

[soylentgreen]

I have proven you are lying.

This is a proven lie. I just gave you the law.

I cited the law saying you have the right to kill in new Zealand.

Proven lie.

No, you simply pointed out examples of self defense.

 

[hecatmoggie]

left my rifle out the last 3 weeks, loaded .....

it did nothing other than stay where I put it ..... how odd ...............

 

[jaeger19]

Not at all. I have not once argued that a person should not own a gun. Just not treat it as if it gives a right to kill. Same with martial arts.

That is the legal intent. But is it the personal belief? In that you cannot speak for any but yourself. But we can point to the actions of americans with guns that tell us not all americans care about the legal intent.

True, no argument against that. What we do not have is a legal right to own a weapon for the purposeful use of self defense.

Yet you have laws that allow for the use of lethal defense. We do not.

My argument is not that such things happen in my or other countries. The argument is that in america you not only have laws that allow for the use of lethal force but you also have a an ideology odf using lethal force in self defense.

Yeah. But your assumption is that if they purchase it for self defense or take martial arts for self defense that this indicates that they “ treat it as a right to kill”. When there is zero evidence to support this absurd assumption.

2. Well legal intent is the result of the United States citizens collective belief.
When people say kill with a firearm in the us. The vast vast majority are convicted of murder by a jury of their peers .
The citizens of the use require a reasonable expectation that you need deadly force to stop an imminent threat of grave bodily harm or death. No different than the citizens of New Zealand.

3. Sure. Which is frankly stupid. So they can USE a firearm to protect themselves but they cannot buy one for that reason. That makes no logical sense.

4. Your laws also provide for the use of lethal force in self defense as long as it’s reasonable.

5. Well except your laws and your juries are basically identical to the USA in your feelings on the use of lethal force .

Face it. You didn’t even know that your justice system will not charge and prosecute individuals that kill in self defense.

 

[Rich2018]

left my rifle out the last 3 weeks, loaded .....

it did nothing other than stay where I put it ..... how odd ...............

Try leaving it in a public place overnight....

 

[RF667799]

Try leaving it in a public place overnight....

Why would you suggest such a stupid action?

 

[soylentgreen]

Yeah. But your assumption is that if they purchase it for self defense or take martial arts for self defense that this indicates that they “ treat it as a right to kill”. When there is zero evidence to support this absurd assumption.

The evidence is in the many threads here where there pro gun argue for a right to kill.

2. Well legal intent is the result of the United States citizens collective belief.

Legal intent is not the problem. A belief that it is a right to kill is.

When people say kill with a firearm in the us. The vast vast majority are convicted of murder by a jury of their peers .
The citizens of the use require a reasonable expectation that you need deadly force to stop an imminent threat of grave bodily harm or death. No different than the citizens of New Zealand.

No the difference here is that there is no right to have a gun for self defense.

3. Sure. Which is frankly stupid. So they can USE a firearm to protect themselves but they cannot buy one for that reason. That makes no logical sense.

Of course it does. it puts a stop to a vigilante mentality.

4. Your laws also provide for the use of lethal force in self defense as long as it’s reasonable.

True. Pro gun ideology however does not. Ie; from my cold dead hands.

5. Well except your laws and your juries are basically identical to the USA in your feelings on the use of lethal force .

No, your laws allow for the use of lethal force. No such allowance is given here.

Face it. You didn’t even know that your justice system will not charge and prosecute individuals that kill in self defense.

Not of that particular case. But further research reveals that it never reached court for reasons other than self defense.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national...tabbed-night-shelter-resident-cannot-be-named

A psychiatric report by Dr Erik Monasterio found the man was not fit to stand trial or be interviewed by police. He was found to have a number of physical and mental issues as a result of chronic alcohol use, and he met the diagnostic criteria for major neuro cognitive disorder due to a brain injury.

 

[RF667799]

The evidence is in the many threads here where there pro gun argue for a right to kill.


Legal intent is not the problem. A belief that it is a right to kill is.

No the difference here is that there is no right to have a gun for self defense.

Of course it does. it puts a stop to a vigilante mentality.

True. Pro gun ideology however does not. Ie; from my cold dead hands.

No, your laws allow for the use of lethal force. No such allowance is given here.

Not of that particular case. But further research reveals that it never reached court for reasons other than self defense.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national...tabbed-night-shelter-resident-cannot-be-named

There's a right to self defense. And there's no use crying over spilled aggressors.

 

[rahl]

No, you simply pointed out examples of self defense.

I’ve cited the New Zealand law giving you the right to kill. When you say otherwise, you are lying. And have been proven to be lying.

 

[jaeger19]

The evidence is in the many threads here where there pro gun argue for a right to kill.


Legal intent is not the problem. A belief that it is a right to kill is.

No the difference here is that there is no right to have a gun for self defense.

Of course it does. it puts a stop to a vigilante mentality.

True. Pro gun ideology however does not. Ie; from my cold dead hands.

No, your laws allow for the use of lethal force. No such allowance is given here.

Not of that particular case. But further research reveals that it never reached court for reasons other than self defense.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national...tabbed-night-shelter-resident-cannot-be-named

1. Yeah . You identified ONE fellow who said that he had a right to use deadly force e to protect property. And every other gun owner showed you that was not what the law said and told you that lethal force could be used only when reasonable to stop an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm.
So basically you ignored us law. You ignored what the vast majority of gun owners say and you focused on one poster who confirmed your pre conceived notion.

2.. ILL SPEAK SLOWLY SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND.
Legal intent is a result of the intent of the citizens that lobby and support said legal intent.

So legal intent follows the belief. What is your argument ? That people in the us believe they have a right to kill so they pushed for laws that expressively forbid killing another unless in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.

You realize how silly your argument is right.??

3 which frankly is stupid. Because in NZ you can legally use a firearm for self defense. So you can use it for self defense but you can’t tell the police you want to buy it for that reason..

You kinda underscore how ridiculous that New Zealanders can be. You can use it for self defense but you can’t buy it for that purpose.

Kinda like how you thought it was reasonable that if one person used an ar 15 to kill , you would take everyone else’s at 15 away . Not because they were a threat but to send a message that killing with an ar 15 isn’t acceptable but of course as you said, the message wasn’t for criminals it was for the people wouldn’t kill in the first place.

3. Using a firearm for self defense isn’t vigilantism . No way , no how. Vigilantism is illegal in the USA.

“There is a very thin line between serving the public and breaking the law. Regardless of your intentions, vigilantism is illegal.”

Vigilante Liability

Know what vigilantism is and the punishments that go with it on LegalMatchs law library. Find a lawyer to defend your case by calling (415) 946 - 3744

www.legalmatch.com

4. Your law absolutely allows for the use of lethal force .

That’s why charges were dropped in this case.

“There was no prospect of the Crown disproving self-defence, McClenaghan said.”

5. See above. The fact that the charges were dropped because of the failure to disprove self defense PROVES that New Zealand has a provision for the use of lethal force in self defense.

And further.. the mental health issues were the reason HIS NAME WAS NOT RELEASED.

“Justice Jonathan Eaton granted the man permanent name suppression on Friday, due to his mental health challenges and the fact the charge against him was dismissed early on.”

Further in your citation again.

“He said this case stood out as the prosecution, having laid a murder charge instead of a holding charge, "swiftly embarked on a comprehensive review of the available evidence" and reached the conclusion the prosecution had "no reasonable prospect of defeating a defence of self-defence".

Justice Eaton said he was satisfied the man would suffer extreme hardship if his name were published given the mental health challenges he faced, his ongoing state of confusion and the risk that elevated stress levels would have serious consequences.”

Nice try but no. Clearly NZ law provides for the use of lethal force in self defense.

There simply is no other logical way to see it.

 

[jaeger19]

Why would you suggest such a stupid action?

Remember the conversation about how anti gun people know how irresponsible they are?

Bingo. We have another winner.

 

[SMTA]

Please answer the question. Do you think of yourself as a safe firearm owner?

Yup. Prove otherwise

 

[RF667799]

Yup. Prove otherwise

Notice how the question is phrased.

And then she'll tell you that you aren't, and then when you object she'll tell you that you're being defensive. As if that points out some flaw or something.

 

[SMTA]

Notice how the question is phrased.

And then she'll tell you that you aren't, and then when you object she'll tell you that you're being defensive. As if that points out some flaw or something.

I don’t care - all of her posts here are bullshit.

 

[SMTA]

Try leaving it in a public place overnight....

Hilarious how all of your posts are ****ing stupid.

 

[Scatty Kitty]

Hmm if you saw someone trying to kill say 5 other people. As a Buddhist , would less harm come to pass if you stopped the killer ( even with death)
Or would your compassion for the killer outweigh your compassion for the 5 who are being killed. ?

I like that I've already mentioned my experiences with violence, I think in this thread.

 

[Scatty Kitty]

It isn't really up to me to prove you wrong. It's your opinion and so is up to you to support.

Nevertheless, the fact there are only 500 fatalities (or less) annually among 100 million gun owners, cuts your opinion about "average gun owners" to the very bone.

But then, you don't seem to understand what is involved in supporting an opinion such as yours.

You mean like the sources I've cited which say what I've said? I'm sorry but if you want me to meet some random standard you have, you need to first explain why my standard I set out in the OP isn't a good enough one. I'll wait.

 

[Scatty Kitty]

Well that’s not true. Thats a false claim based on faulty research.

I await your source. Otherwise I think I'm up to 4 gun enthusiasts that say my sources are wrong without saying why they're wrong.

 

[RF667799]

I like that I've already mentioned my experiences with violence, I think in this thread.

You mean your story about almost having something violent happen?

 

[RF667799]

You mean like the sources I've cited which say what I've said? I'm sorry but if you want me to meet some random standard you have, you need to first explain why my standard I set out in the OP isn't a good enough one. I'll wait.

Your standard of gun safety is nothing but your own opinion.

 

[Scatty Kitty]

The idea that, in order to be "safe," firearms must in all cases be locked up or stored separately from ammunition, is complete nonsense.

Ugh I think I'm up to 5 now. Would you call yourself a gun enthusiast?

How many of the 2300 people in the study who were murdered were gang members or otherwise regularly involved in crime, or related to them?

It's kinda telling that in order to make your 'point', you have to justify their deaths as "deserved". For example, are you saying the victims of intimate partner violence was deserved?