You can ban handguns without violating the 2nd Amendment

[Rich2018]

Pot calling kettle then because this pro-gun crowd lot seem to have no problem and in fact are even insisting I make this personal about myself.

I find it annoying that I have to educate tiny on guns rather than debate him on the issue.

The one thing the gun lobby hate, above all, is making a mistake about guns and being schooled.

 

[soylentgreen]

You spoke of unsecured guns earlier. Loaded, unattended, unsecured. Why are you moving goalposts in deleting one of your supposed safety factors now?

Again: What if the loaded gun is unattended but is secured in a gun safe?

Hasn't the chance of accident been mitigated?

That is the argument. Lursa claims it is safe to leave a loaded gun unsecured and unattended.

And again what if you back that example with something from a gun safety manual. What expert with guns is claiming that leaving a loaded gun unattended is safe even if it is in a safe.

Yes the chances have been mitigated. That would be even more true if the person followed the rules and unloaded the gun first. the chances would be even further reduced if the person kept the gun and ammo in separate secured storage.
That really is the safe and sensible way of owning a gun. That is what is being stated in safety books about guns. All these others are just an opinion of dubious credibility.

However the problem here is that the pro-gun crowd argue by fear. the fear of being attacked by a criminal outweighs doing the correct safety measures with a gun.

 

[RF667799]

My example was sarcasm, get over it.

I do not need to come up with anything. Accidents by there very nature are not predictable. They can happen for the oddest of reasons when least expected. You have absolutely no guarantee that an accident will never befall you. Yopur argument though is that your superior life to others means you can ignore being safe with a gun.

And again you tell alie is that really all you have to defend your stance? You left out the fact that your gun is loaded. That is the key point to leaving a gun unattended.

No it is you who have made a claim that you cannot back up. All I have done is point out that your claim is ignoring a basic safety rule. which is a claim backed by any safety book on guns.

Lursa spoke of having a loaded gun accessible. Obviously, an unattended gun is not accessible yet "unattended" was something you inserted into your safety rules. This is just one example of your shifting argument.

 

[RF667799]

That is the argument. Lursa claims it is safe to leave a loaded gun unsecured and unattended.

And again what if you back that example with something from a gun safety manual. What expert with guns is claiming that leaving a loaded gun unattended is safe even if it is in a safe.

Yes the chances have been mitigated. That would be even more true if the person followed the rules and unloaded the gun first. the chances would be even further reduced if the person kept the gun and ammo in separate secured storage.
That really is the safe and sensible way of owning a gun. That is what is being stated in safety books about guns. All these others are just an opinion of dubious credibility.

However the problem here is that the pro-gun crowd argue by fear. the fear of being attacked by a criminal outweighs doing the correct safety measures with a gun.

A "safety book about guns" is immutable natural law if it agrees with your argument. This is akin to @Rich2018 asserting that one of his Youtube videos is the final word on whether a .45 is better than a 9mm.

So the chances are mitigated in the case a loaded gun is left secured in a safe. This is progress. You are admitting that your rules are not immutable. That risk could be mitigated further is undeniable. But that's where personal risk assessment comes into play.

 

[soylentgreen]

The one thing the gun lobby hate, above all, is making a mistake about guns and being schooled.

They argue by fear. To the point where they ignore safety and become their own worse enemy. It does make it clear why they cannot figure out why so many americans die because of an accident with a gun

I have been thinking about broaching the point that in most ist world countries such as mine safety rules are an actual law for which gun owners can be prosecuted for. While in america it is an option that these gun owners think they are to good for. But i can guess that will have the flight of a lead balloon.

 

[Lursa]

My example was sarcasm, get over it.

I do not need to come up with anything. Accidents by there very nature are not predictable. They can happen for the oddest of reasons when least expected. You have absolutely no guarantee that an accident will never befall you. Yopur argument though is that your superior life to others means you can ignore being safe with a gun.

And again you tell alie is that really all you have to defend your stance? You left out the fact that your gun is loaded. That is the key point to leaving a gun unattended.

No it is you who have made a claim that you cannot back up. All I have done is point out that your claim is ignoring a basic safety rule. which is a claim backed by any safety book on guns.

TL:dr Answer up or dont bother.

Another total fail from you. Your example clearly failed...so instead of admitting you're wrong and cant come up with anything, you do another rerun of an attempt at a personal attack. You have proven you are unable to explain how my 9mm, stored as I've described, is unsafe. Obviously, you dont understand that gun rule.

Either go back and answer direct questions relevant to the discussion or dont bother. You made the claims and you cant back them up. That's called losing the discussion. Or...you can respond where you've been refuted and answer the questions.

 

[soylentgreen]

Lursa spoke of having a loaded gun accessible. Obviously, an unattended gun is not accessible yet "unattended" was something you inserted into your safety rules. This is just one example of your shifting argument.

No she she tried to pretend that is he is leaving a loaded gun accessible. She spoke of leaving a loaded gun within easy reach which is entirely different from saying a gun is accessible. Following the safety rules a gun kept in a safe unloaded with ammo in a separate safe is a gun that is accessible. leaving a loaded gun on a table unattended is having a gun within easy reach. and is not safe.

 

[Rich2018]

They argue by fear. To the point where they ignore safety and become their own worse enemy. It does make it clear why they cannot figure out why so many americans die because of an accident with a gun

The irony is that the gun lovers lobby accuse the gun control lobby of having "irrational" fear about guns
Yet they're the ones holed up in their castles with their personal armory

I have been thinking about broaching the point that in most ist world countries such as mine safety rules are an actual law for which gun owners can be prosecuted for. While in america it is an option that these gun owners think they are to good for. But i can guess that will have the flight of a lead balloon.

You have to first understand the attachment to guns of the gun lobby - it's not for defense, that's just their excuse and how they rationalize spending $$$ and something they don't need
Doubtless they do the same over buying a 4X4 V8 truck that never gets used for anything more arduous than a ride to the supermarket.

 

[soylentgreen]

A "safety book about guns" is immutable natural law if it agrees with your argument. This is akin to @Rich2018 asserting that one of his Youtube videos is the final word on whether a .45 is better than a 9mm.

So the chances are mitigated in the case a loaded gun is left secured in a safe. This is progress. You are admitting that your rules are not immutable. That risk could be mitigated further is undeniable. But that's where personal risk assessment comes into play.

No it is not. The safety rules make sense in that they do reduce the chance of an accident. The fact that all safety books are consistent with that is what gives credibility.


Not at all thanks for cherry picking my statement. I said it was more safer than leaving a loaded gun in the open not that it was safe. It is not a case of whether the rules are immutable. It is a case of whether anyone hers can give a good reason top ignore the safety rule. And so far the only reason given is that they are to good with guns to bother being safe with them.

 

[soylentgreen]

TL:dr Answer up or dont bother.

Get a clue on what the word accident means or stop claiming your bullet proof.

 

[Lursa]

Get a clue on what the word accident means or stop claiming your bullet proof.

Says the person who cant come up with a viable scenario with an "accident."

 

[soylentgreen]

The irony is that the gun lovers lobby accuse the gun control lobby of having "irrational" fear about guns
Yet they're the ones holed up in their castles with their personal armory



You have to first understand the attachment to guns of the gun lobby - it's not for defense, that's just their excuse and how they rationalize spending $$$ and something they don't need
Doubtless they do the same over buying a 4X4 V8 truck that never gets used for anything more arduous than a ride to the supermarket.

I find it amusing that they argue both that crime is such a possibility that a gun needs to kept in an unsafe way in order to deal with that crime and then argue that crime has significantly reduced because of gun ownership.

Of all the good reasons to own a gun this crowd concentrates on the most stupidest of reasons for having one.

 

[soylentgreen]

Says the person who cant come up with a viable scenario with an "accident."

So still no clue about what an accident is Keep looking you will find it google is your friend.

 

[Lursa]

So still no clue about what an accident is Keep looking you will find it google is your friend.

Then I guess you shouldnt have tried to support your arguments with false crap about safety rules that you dont understand...you just ran out of road and resorted to "google it."

 

[Lursa]

That is the argument. Lursa claims it is safe to leave a loaded gun unsecured and unattended.

This is a lie and out of context. There are circumstances where it is safe and I described an example. And you have been unable to tell us how it's unsafe. You just regurgitate a 'rule' you dont understand.

 

[soylentgreen]

Then I guess you shouldnt have tried to support your arguments with false crap about safety rules that you dont understand...you just ran out of road and resorted to "google it."

No false crap about safety rules on my part I have quoted them exactly it is you who are ignoring them.

Again, noted is your complete failure to back your claim. But that is to be expected as your argument is a complete failure.

 

[Lursa]

No false crap about safety rules on my part I have quoted them exactly it is you who are ignoring them.

Again, noted is your complete failure to back your claim. But that is to be expected as your argument is a complete failure.

So then answer the question. Answer how my firearm is unsafe?

 

[soylentgreen]

This is a lie and out of context. There are circumstances where it is safe and I described an example. And you have been unable to tell us how it's unsafe. You just regurgitate a 'rule' you dont understand.

You made the claim you leave a gun loaded and unattended on a table. You further claimed that accidents do not happen to you.
I have quoted the safety rules of a gun. You do nothing but try to ignore those safety rules.

 

[soylentgreen]

So then answer the question. Answer how my firearm is unsafe?

By the very fact that it is a loaded gun left unattended. That is all that it needs to be to be unsafe. Because the nature of an accident is that they are unpredictable.

 

[Lursa]

You made the claim you leave a gun loaded and unattended on a table. You further claimed that accidents do not happen to you.
I have quoted the safety rules of a gun. You do nothing but try to ignore those safety rules.

That's not a claim or an argument. It's a fact. YOU made the claim that it's unsafe. Let's see you explain how, since I've described it.
I'm not ignoring any rule unless you can prove it's unsafe.

 

[soylentgreen]

Then I guess you shouldnt have tried to support your arguments with false crap about safety rules that you dont understand...you just ran out of road and resorted to "google it."

You have done nothing but disagree that it is a safety rule that you need to bother with. Not that it is not a safety rule. Not that you actually understand the safety rule. but only that you are so good that safety is never a concern for you.

 

[soylentgreen]

That's not a claim or an argument. It's a fact. YOU made the claim that it's unsafe. Let's see you explain how, since I've described it.
I'm not ignoring any rule unless you can prove it's unsafe.

No I have consistently pointed out the fact that you are incapable of locating one link that backs your unsafe practice.
What you are doing is ignoring a safety rule because for an unexplained reason you do not feel safety is a concern for you.

 

[Lursa]

You have done nothing but disagree that it is a safety rule that you need to bother with. Not that it is not a safety rule. Not that you actually understand the safety rule. but only that you are so good that safety is never a concern for you.

Here you go bobbing and weaving. You made a false statement about 'my claim' which is fact, and now are moving the goal posts.

Tell me how my firearm is unsafe?

 

[Lursa]

No I have consistently pointed out the fact that you are incapable of locating one link that backs your unsafe practice.
What you are doing is ignoring a safety rule because for an unexplained reason you do not feel safety is a concern for you.

Here you go bobbing and weaving. You made a false statement about 'my claim' which is fact, and now are moving the goal posts.

"It's a bad idea to walk on the edge of the road." Can you please link to that rule somewhere? (Good luck but then I'll ask you to link to another statement where I say it's safe.)

Tell me how my firearm is unsafe? If you cant say, then there's no assuming that it is...that's just you making a claim with no foundation in reality, out of convenience to your agenda.

 

[soylentgreen]

Here you go bobbing and weaving. You made a false statement about 'my claim' which is fact, and now are moving the goal posts.

"It's a bad idea to walk on the edge of the road." Can you please link to that rule somewhere? (Good luck but then I'll ask you to link to another statement where I say it's safe.)

Tell me how my firearm is unsafe? If you cant say, then there's no assuming that it is...that's just you making a claim with no foundation in reality, out of convenience to your agenda.

I have made no false statements. Nor am i moving any goal post.
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/child-consumer-safety/safe-storage/

The most secure way to store firearms, as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, is to store them unloaded, locked, and separate from ammunition.1

https://www.storagefront.com/therentersbent/storing-your-firearms-safe-options-for-gun-storage/

Wherever you end up storing a firearm, give it three levels of safety. The first comprises making sure it’s unloaded and always locked with a trigger lock. The second is to put it in a safe, preferably made specifically for guns. The third is the storage place itself.

Your turn provide a link that tells us it is safe to store a loaded gun. Nah! Just kidding of course you will not because you cannot.