4 ms·

To play devil's advocate, which gun law would have prevented this person from getting shot by her toddler? As a gun rights advocate, she presumably has been ar

by imgabe 11y ago

To play devil's advocate, which gun law would have prevented this person from getting shot by her toddler? As a gun rights advocate, she presumably has been around guns for a long time and should have been well versed in how to handle them safely. I doubt there's any training that could be mandated that would exceed the experience she already had. Short of banning guns entirely, which would require a constitutional amendment, I don't see what the proposed solution is. She should definitely be facing some harsh penalties for negligence and endangering a minor if she isn't already. In general, I think it makes more sense to have laws that punish people for bad things that actually happen, not for things that might, conceivably, possibly lead to something bad happening. No amount of legislation is going to prevent idiots from being idiots.

zamalek 11y ago
I live in South Africa and while our gun situation is very depressing, I've never heard of a situation like this happening here. The owner needs absolutely no common sense about how to safely store a gun. There are very specific laws about this and there are heavy penalties for neglecting them. Your training is not about safety, that is merely a consequence of learning the rules. > No amount of legislation is going to prevent idiots from being idiots. You can, however, swing probabilities. > She should definitely be facing some harsh penalties for negligence and endangering a minor if she isn't already. This is a key point I think. One of the main arguments I hear from gun advocates is "protecting your family." For argument's sake assume that this is a valid point, play the devil's advocate. By leaving a loaded weapon lying around there is a higher probability of your family getting hurt by that weapon, than someone walking into your home and hurting your family. At this point you have become an imminent threat to everyone around you and that threat must be eliminated, possibly by preventing your whole household from ever laying their hands on a weapon (blacklisting). In other words, by allowing Gilt to own a gun you are endangering her life and her child's life. She should not be let near one. Settling the gun advocacy argument is clearly going to take a long time, but "common sense" laws can be put in place until a conclusion has been reached. In the short-term this would benefit both sides of the argument were they not both so belligerent.
- jjn2009 11y ago
  >You can, however, swing probabilities. This is no different than the anti (strong) crypto arguments. The overwhelming amount of law abiding citizens give up liberties in the name of reducing a probability which is less significant than the risk of eating cheese burgers every day and dying from heart disease, or entering a vehicle.
  - zamalek 11y ago
    All I argued for was "common sense" gun laws. If guns were handled correctly (by law) this article or discussion wouldn't exist - gun advocacy would look good. Under the same conditions gun control advocates would have a shorter leap up to strict legislation. This is not a net step forward or back for either side. Gun advocates see it as a step toward limitations of their freedom. Control advocates see it as not a large enough step. This is depressing because people are at risk around idiots every day. Everyone is fixated on the end-goal, instead of saving lives - which is why both sides are having this argument in the first place.
    - jjn2009 11y ago
      >"common sense" gun laws Considering this is america we are talking about the "common sense" is that liberty is better than government provided safety for a large portion of americans. >If guns were handled correctly (by law) this article or discussion wouldn't exist Cars kill more people by a large margin, if we really cared about safety then why is it that we see articles about gun control more so than car deaths, or heart disease? Sensationalization of an issue isn't some basis we should be using for arguments about how to write laws. >Gun advocates see it as a step toward limitations of their freedom. Every single piece of legislation which exhibits control chips away at freedom even if its imperceptible in the short term view, we just saw the FBI try and use a 200+ year old law to limit the freedom of apple to protect their customers. The thing about the US government is that once a law is written it is difficult for to go away and very easy for it to be forgotten about until conveniently needed in court. Coalescing piece by piece, legislation over time has brought us to a point where most citizens are breaking some law in some form without knowing it. Calling each step forward in gun control a small step towards limiting freedom isn't really that crazy. >Everyone is fixated on the end-goal, instead of saving lives If they were really concerned then their fixation is misplaced http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
lolc 11y ago
I think just having a culture shift away from the romantic idea that private guns deter crime and offer protection would bring down the amount of gun accidents considerably. Punishing people after something bad happens turns out to not work very well for prevention. Another romantic idea demolished by reality. Compare: Psychoactive substances: We just lock up anybody touching them. Guns: We lock up anybody abusing them. Observe how both approaches fail to protect us from irresponsible people.
- ZoeZoeBee 11y ago
  Banning Guns may Decrease Gun Violence, But they do not have the effect of reducing Violent Crime In General. Case In point Australia After the Gun Ban Saw Violent Crimes increase, for a few years and after those the decline in Violence was less than the decline seen in most first world nations like the US. http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html Ask yourself this question why do people advocating for gun control only talk about the decrease in gun violence and not violence/homicide in general. Why is a stabbing death not equal to a gun death?
  - lolc 11y ago
    I was talking about gun accidents. You are talking about something else, violence. People playing with knifes hardly ever accidentally stab people to death. Now if we assumed that homicides would go up when guns are effectively banned (dubious assumption), we would likely still see a drop in overall gun deaths due to the avoided accidents and suicides.
radiorental 11y ago
Terrorists have been known to carry guns, babies accidentally fire guns. Let's contrast the two sets. This falls into the clickbait narrative that so easily triggers opinions either side of the gun law debate. If there's any value to be taken from this comparison it's how "terrorism" is used to direct funding towards agencies like the TSA (and many others) who don't perform any meaningful function. Or distract us from any of the other difficult to monetize causes of death that overshadow "terrorism". Meanwhile we all squabble between those holding up the constitution and those yelling 'told you so'. Yet another day in 'Merica.
- firethief 11y ago
  The TSA performs a very meaningful function. If you want to fly in the US, you have to submit to their probing. This is an important part of maintaining the terror, which serves many useful political functions. We'd put up with a lot less incursion on our liberties if they stopped feeding the terror.
harshalizee 11y ago
To your question, The one that out rightly bans guns would have definitely prevented this. We can debate to no end about how she should have, could have, would have, etc taken preventive measures. But the fact of the matter is, accidents do and will happen. We should really take a look at how literally the rest of the world does it and take notes.
soundwave106 11y ago
Obviously if you are leaving a loaded gun in the back of a pickup truck within reach of a toddler, you haven't been paying attention to gun safety rules enough. :) Unfortunately, I don't think "gun rights advocate" these days means someone who is properly versed on gun safety. Too often, "gun rights advocates" is more a philosophical or political position -- wrapped in Dirty Harry-esque tails, paranoia about governments taking over, a way to display masochism, etc. Guns are a tool, but a potentially dangerous one. And any statistics I find (one reference for instance: http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.ht...) suggest that the United States' safety record with guns is pretty horrible compared to everyone else (eg compared to other rich countries, we have a higher incidence rate of injuries, deaths, and gun-oriented suicides than any other). While no amount of legislation is going to prevent complete idiots from being idiots, perhaps properly drawn up safety oriented regulations may help drive home the point to everyone who is not an idiot. Safety regulations seem acceptable in most other places in life, even when there has been some freedom-oriented resistance. (Think of seat belt laws, for instance -- despite the resistance from some, they have ended up being very effective at reducing traffic fatalities and injuries.) Maybe some gun safety legislation is indeed misguided, but I have to roll my eyes when some gun rights advocates act like something like, say, a safe gun storage law is a Hidden Agenda To Facilitate Governments Disarming the American Public or something. I don't think that's the intention. Safety laws can be good; safety laws can be misguided... but if a safety law is misguided, I want to hear technical reasons why from the firearms crowd, not conspiracy diatribe.

by imgabe 11y ago

zamalek 11y ago

I live in South Africa and while our gun situation is very depressing, I've never heard of a situation like this happening here. The owner needs absolutely no common sense about how to safely store a gun. There are very specific laws about this and there are heavy penalties for neglecting them. Your training is not about safety, that is merely a consequence of learning the rules. > No amount of legislation is going to prevent idiots from being idiots. You can, however, swing probabilities. > She should definitely be facing some harsh penalties for negligence and endangering a minor if she isn't already. This is a key point I think. One of the main arguments I hear from gun advocates is "protecting your family." For argument's sake assume that this is a valid point, play the devil's advocate. By leaving a loaded weapon lying around there is a higher probability of your family getting hurt by that weapon, than someone walking into your home and hurting your family. At this point you have become an imminent threat to everyone around you and that threat must be eliminated, possibly by preventing your whole household from ever laying their hands on a weapon (blacklisting). In other words, by allowing Gilt to own a gun you are endangering her life and her child's life. She should not be let near one. Settling the gun advocacy argument is clearly going to take a long time, but "common sense" laws can be put in place until a conclusion has been reached. In the short-term this would benefit both sides of the argument were they not both so belligerent.

jjn2009 11y ago
>You can, however, swing probabilities. This is no different than the anti (strong) crypto arguments. The overwhelming amount of law abiding citizens give up liberties in the name of reducing a probability which is less significant than the risk of eating cheese burgers every day and dying from heart disease, or entering a vehicle.
- zamalek 11y ago
  All I argued for was "common sense" gun laws. If guns were handled correctly (by law) this article or discussion wouldn't exist - gun advocacy would look good. Under the same conditions gun control advocates would have a shorter leap up to strict legislation. This is not a net step forward or back for either side. Gun advocates see it as a step toward limitations of their freedom. Control advocates see it as not a large enough step. This is depressing because people are at risk around idiots every day. Everyone is fixated on the end-goal, instead of saving lives - which is why both sides are having this argument in the first place.
  - jjn2009 11y ago
    >"common sense" gun laws Considering this is america we are talking about the "common sense" is that liberty is better than government provided safety for a large portion of americans. >If guns were handled correctly (by law) this article or discussion wouldn't exist Cars kill more people by a large margin, if we really cared about safety then why is it that we see articles about gun control more so than car deaths, or heart disease? Sensationalization of an issue isn't some basis we should be using for arguments about how to write laws. >Gun advocates see it as a step toward limitations of their freedom. Every single piece of legislation which exhibits control chips away at freedom even if its imperceptible in the short term view, we just saw the FBI try and use a 200+ year old law to limit the freedom of apple to protect their customers. The thing about the US government is that once a law is written it is difficult for to go away and very easy for it to be forgotten about until conveniently needed in court. Coalescing piece by piece, legislation over time has brought us to a point where most citizens are breaking some law in some form without knowing it. Calling each step forward in gun control a small step towards limiting freedom isn't really that crazy. >Everyone is fixated on the end-goal, instead of saving lives If they were really concerned then their fixation is misplaced http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

lolc 11y ago

I think just having a culture shift away from the romantic idea that private guns deter crime and offer protection would bring down the amount of gun accidents considerably. Punishing people after something bad happens turns out to not work very well for prevention. Another romantic idea demolished by reality. Compare: Psychoactive substances: We just lock up anybody touching them. Guns: We lock up anybody abusing them. Observe how both approaches fail to protect us from irresponsible people.

ZoeZoeBee 11y ago
Banning Guns may Decrease Gun Violence, But they do not have the effect of reducing Violent Crime In General. Case In point Australia After the Gun Ban Saw Violent Crimes increase, for a few years and after those the decline in Violence was less than the decline seen in most first world nations like the US. http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html Ask yourself this question why do people advocating for gun control only talk about the decrease in gun violence and not violence/homicide in general. Why is a stabbing death not equal to a gun death?
- lolc 11y ago
  I was talking about gun accidents. You are talking about something else, violence. People playing with knifes hardly ever accidentally stab people to death. Now if we assumed that homicides would go up when guns are effectively banned (dubious assumption), we would likely still see a drop in overall gun deaths due to the avoided accidents and suicides.

radiorental 11y ago

Terrorists have been known to carry guns, babies accidentally fire guns. Let's contrast the two sets. This falls into the clickbait narrative that so easily triggers opinions either side of the gun law debate. If there's any value to be taken from this comparison it's how "terrorism" is used to direct funding towards agencies like the TSA (and many others) who don't perform any meaningful function. Or distract us from any of the other difficult to monetize causes of death that overshadow "terrorism". Meanwhile we all squabble between those holding up the constitution and those yelling 'told you so'. Yet another day in 'Merica.

firethief 11y ago
The TSA performs a very meaningful function. If you want to fly in the US, you have to submit to their probing. This is an important part of maintaining the terror, which serves many useful political functions. We'd put up with a lot less incursion on our liberties if they stopped feeding the terror.

harshalizee 11y ago

To your question, The one that out rightly bans guns would have definitely prevented this. We can debate to no end about how she should have, could have, would have, etc taken preventive measures. But the fact of the matter is, accidents do and will happen. We should really take a look at how literally the rest of the world does it and take notes.

soundwave106 11y ago

Obviously if you are leaving a loaded gun in the back of a pickup truck within reach of a toddler, you haven't been paying attention to gun safety rules enough. :) Unfortunately, I don't think "gun rights advocate" these days means someone who is properly versed on gun safety. Too often, "gun rights advocates" is more a philosophical or political position -- wrapped in Dirty Harry-esque tails, paranoia about governments taking over, a way to display masochism, etc. Guns are a tool, but a potentially dangerous one. And any statistics I find (one reference for instance: http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.ht...) suggest that the United States' safety record with guns is pretty horrible compared to everyone else (eg compared to other rich countries, we have a higher incidence rate of injuries, deaths, and gun-oriented suicides than any other). While no amount of legislation is going to prevent complete idiots from being idiots, perhaps properly drawn up safety oriented regulations may help drive home the point to everyone who is not an idiot. Safety regulations seem acceptable in most other places in life, even when there has been some freedom-oriented resistance. (Think of seat belt laws, for instance -- despite the resistance from some, they have ended up being very effective at reducing traffic fatalities and injuries.) Maybe some gun safety legislation is indeed misguided, but I have to roll my eyes when some gun rights advocates act like something like, say, a safe gun storage law is a Hidden Agenda To Facilitate Governments Disarming the American Public or something. I don't think that's the intention. Safety laws can be good; safety laws can be misguided... but if a safety law is misguided, I want to hear technical reasons why from the firearms crowd, not conspiracy diatribe.