Gun Control | Imamother

SixOfWands

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 2:06 pm

amother wrote:

Hmmm. We grew up with guns in the house. We knew what they were and where they were and we never ever touched them unless directly supervised.
I think most kids are capable of being respectful and responsible like this. If not, home gun safes are easy to use. Nothing scary about having a gun in the house. To the contrary, mine makes me feel safe.

We put childproof caps on Advil because we can't trust our kids not to eat them.

We put household cleaners out of reach because we can't trust our children not to ingest them.

We put matches out of reach. Lock the liquor cabinet. Put the cookies on a high shelf.

But guns, now THOSE we can trust kids not to touch.

Again, from Jan. 1, 2014, to June 30, 2016, nearly 90 3-year-olds were killed or injured in accidental shootings, the vast majority of which were self-inflicted[/b].

If you don't have your weapon in a gun safe, with the ammo stored apart from the gun, then you are NOT a safe gun owner, and your children are in danger.

amother

Pearl

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 2:22 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

It really depends on the kids. That is not a fair blanket statement. Responsible parents will child-proof as needed. My parents were not negligent parents or unsafe gun owners because they kept guns in places that were accessible to us. They knew that we were the sort of kids who wouldn't touch them. Obviously not all kids are the same.

ETA: Personally, I use gun safes because I do NOT trust all of my kids.

SixOfWands

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 2:33 pm

amother wrote:

Apologies if I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that all, or most, children can be trusted.

But even if you have children you think can be trusted, all it takes is one mistake. I don't think that people should take that risk.

southernbubby

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 2:36 pm

amother wrote:

The gun that must be retrieved from a home safe and then loaded, probably will not be used to protect the home in case of invasion. I think that many scared homeowners keep a loaded gun in a bedside nightstand and that makes the gun available to whoever walks into the room. I personally would not feel safer with a gun, I would feel less safe.

I do think that we are moving closer to a time where houses of worship will need armed security and the same goes for malls and schools. Hotels may have to start implementing rules about how long a do not disturb notice can be posted and even have security that checks all packages brought into the hotel.

amother

Pearl

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 2:46 pm

southernbubby wrote:

Nope. Loaded and ready to go. Otherwise you're right. You wont get it on time. Especially if you're waking from a deep sleep. My safe can only be opened by my hand. No chance of kids getting into it at all. DH can't even open it. He wants nothing to do with guns. (But is glad I'm comfortable with them).

Fox

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 2:52 pm

Here's why these conversations go downhill fast, and not just on Imamother:

The NRA is not the enemy. I'm curious as to how many of you who've mentioned the NRA in a negative way regularly receive their publications, check out their website, or have attended any of their classes. What about other 2A groups? I wonder whether you're familiar with the various conversations within these organizations -- among experienced and knowledgable experts in various fields -- about how to best reduce gun violence while protecting the 2A.

Ignorance is bliss. I'm not going to call attention to the error, but there was a post that completely confused handguns, semi-automatic guns, and assault weaponry. Fine. Not everyone is an expert on guns. I'm certainly not. But (a) the overwhelming majority of all currently-manufactured handguns are semi-automatic; and (b) fully automatic and military-grade assault weapons are already illegal. This goes back to the folly of demonizing the NRA; they're the ones who can help find a way out of this.

Is it about guns or about saving lives? We're all against kids dying accidentally, right? Of course! So do you allow your child to go swimming? Really? Are you a certified lifeguard? Did you check the certification of the lifeguard on duty? Did you check the pool for safety features, such as advanced drain covers, before allowing your child to get in? Do you insist that your children wear the most technologically-advanced anti-drowning devices? No to any of those? Then you're not really against children dying accidentally, are you? Because 2 children die every day in drowning accidents -- more than die in accidental firearm incidents. Swimming pools are no more necessary than guns.

How about enforcing the laws we have? This is what I meant upthread by treating legislation as if it were a magic spell. In both of the last two mass shootings, there was legislation in place that should have prevented the shooters from acquiring the weapons they had. In the case of the Las Vegas shooter, the public knows less, but military experts claim that the audio is almost certainly from automatic weapons -- probably purchased on the black market. In Texas, the current system broke down. Why does anyone think gun violence will decrease if only we pass more laws that we won't enforce?

This isn't really about guns; it's about culture. If people like Congressman Ted Lieu really cared about saving lives, he wouldn't be walking out on admittedly-perfunctory moments of silence. He'd be holding hands on stage with Wayne LaPierre, talking about joining forces to enforce and tweak existing laws; reduce accidental deaths and injuries; and figure out how to safeguard both the Constitution and individual safety in a huge, heterogeneous country. But it's not about saving lives. It's about hatred: sanctioned, socially-appropriate hatred with deep roots in American history that has hardened into inexcusable bigotry.

southernbubby

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 3:09 pm

Fox wrote:

I am not sure what bigotry you are referring to in your last paragraph but I am all for teaching marksmanship. Some of my grandchildren have done target shooting. If a gun is going to be needed in someone's future, at least have the skill to use it.

amother

Plum

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 3:14 pm

southernbubby wrote:

All that is nice and good but there are currently estimated to be at least 90 million guns in circulation. Good luck getting rid of all that or curbing the use or maintaining safe keeping. It would be nice if police departments had storage lockers so that residents could keep guns there until needed and then returned to the lockers but that takes lots of money, space and manpower to create and maintain that.

So the next time someone breaks the law and decides to shoot up a church there won't be an NRA instructor available to stop the lunatic. He would have to drive the 20 minutes to the police station and would arrive AFTER the police did. Great idea Rolling Eyes

amother

Plum

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 3:39 pm

southernbubby wrote:

The police station idea would be for those who need safe storage for their guns. What if you share an apartment with people who you don't totally trust? Do most people keep their rifles loaded and ready at a moment's notice? How many people become expert marksmen like that instructor?

And what's wrong with having a loaded clip next to a gun inside a safe that can only be unlocked by a handprint? (You don't want to keep the clip inside so it won't corrode). No one can get into a locked safe without your hand or the code.
Why would I leave it at the police station??
How do you become better at something? Practice. But demonizing me for wanting to practice kind of makes it harder to do so. And you don't have to be an expert marksman. Everyone was trying to hide so the only person walking was the nutcase.

Oh and fun fact? Often knowing others are carrying will prevent someone from shooting- they target schools that are gun free zones; lone wolves don't typically march into a military base or a police station. There was a study of criminals done and when they asked why they targeted certain individuals to rob, they said "obvious tourists who wouldn't be carrying a gun". Again, read a book on statistics- anything by John Lott.

southernbubby

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 3:45 pm

amother wrote:

Great idea as long as the person is not living with a manipulative, coercive and unsafe person. Basically this instructor needed skill because it was a gun battle where the instructor took a risk. Most of us probably could not hit an armed shooter who was firing at us. That instructor's rifle might not have even been as high power as the shooter.
I don't think schools should be gun free; they need armed security.

SixOfWands

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 3:57 pm

amother wrote:

I have no problem with your means of safely storing your weapon. Or of your honing your skills.

But remember, Texas is an open carry state where more than half of all families own a weapon. And this still happened. You can scream and yell about how gun owners could have prevented this. But the fact is that they didn't.

zohar

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 4:27 pm

[quote="SixOfWands"]

And do you really think that a good guy with a gun can stop a mass shooting? There were plenty of good guys with guns in Las Vegas, but they couldn't stop a sniper. The Texas murderer was confronted by someone with a rifle when he left the church, so someone was clearly nearby; didn't help.

/quote]

In this case, this was absolutely what happened. We now know that he at least saved one life and probably more. Farida Brown was in the last row and was shot for times in her legs. She says that Kelley, (the bad guy), was going back and making sure he shoots dead the injured. He just had murdered the woman to left of her when Willeford, (good guy with gun, an AR15) shot at Kelley distracting him. She was in the last row, which is why he was able to shoot them from the doorway to the church. Also, Kelley was most likely not finished his rampage. He was wearing tactical gear and had many more guns and ammo in his vehicle. He may have been heading to a second location as we see in many Mass shootings.

I think we can all agree that it's impossible to stop every mass murder, shooting, bombing, knife attack, vehicle attack etc. Or goal is to lessen the frequency and casualty list I'm assuming. Background checks are obviously not the answer, as this system has failed time and time again because, surprise surprise, the government is not very efficient and particularly good at their jobs. Take this incident for example. It was already illegal for this crazy to own a gun but the air force failed to add his name to the registry. Ok. So you say to make semi automatics illegal. This is most guns including hand guns. All it means is each pull off the trigger is a bullet. It is not a machine gun. Fully automatics are already illegal. It is unfortunately very easy to modify a gun to act as an automatic gun and I'm all for banning bump stocks but I'm not sure how effective that is. The shooter was using a handgun by the time Willeford got there and sound plenty damage then without an AR15. Willeford used an AR15 and aimed between the Kevlar plates on Kelley's vest and hit him on the side of his torso. He himself says he would not have been able to accomplish that with a lesser gun. As for limits on ammo, gun control advocates at fond of arguing, "who needs so much". Well, while chasing the gunman, Willeford checked his magazine and saw he had only 2 shots left. That's scary. So basically, in this scenario, background checks failed and legislation on guns and ammo would have prevented the good guy with the gun to have been effective.

So what's my solution. First, we have to understand that we can't make magic and eliminate mad killers from the world. Also, but all solutions have to be government. Government dropped the ball here. The only other thing that could have made this a less tragic event was for there to be armed citizens in the church or an armed body guard. I think we have to be protecting our soft targets better. Schools, houses of worship, shopping centers etc. I do not understand why so many shuls do not have either an armed security guard or make sure that there are armed congregants. I know that some shuls in Israel, during high risk times, have a rotation to make sure there are a few armed congregants at all times.

southernbubby

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 4:45 pm

[quote="zohar"]

SixOfWands wrote:

And do you really think that a good guy with a gun can stop a mass shooting? There were plenty of good guys with guns in Las Vegas, but they couldn't stop a sniper. The Texas murderer was confronted by someone with a rifle when he left the church, so someone was clearly nearby; didn't help.

/quote]

In this case, this was absolutely what happened. We now know that he at least saved one life and probably more. Farida Brown was in the last row and was shot for times in her legs. She says that Kelley, (the bad guy), was going back and making sure he shoots dead the injured. He just had murdered the woman to left of her when Willeford, (good guy with gun, an AR15) shot at Kelley distracting him. She was in the last row, which is why he was able to shoot them from the doorway to the church. Also, Kelley was most likely not finished his rampage. He was wearing tactical gear and had many more guns and ammo in his vehicle. He may have been heading to a second location as we see in many Mass shootings.

I think we can all agree that it's impossible to stop every mass murder, shooting, bombing, knife attack, vehicle attack etc. Or goal is to lessen the frequency and casualty list I'm assuming. Background checks are obviously not the answer, as this system has failed time and time again because, surprise surprise, the government is not very efficient and particularly good at their jobs. Take this incident for example. It was already illegal for this crazy to own a gun but the air force failed to add his name to the registry. Ok. So you say to make semi automatics illegal. This is most guns including hand guns. All it means is each pull off the trigger is a bullet. It is not a machine gun. Fully automatics are already illegal. It is unfortunately very easy to modify a gun to act as an automatic gun and I'm all for banning bump stocks but I'm not sure how effective that is. The shooter was using a handgun by the time Willeford got there and sound plenty damage then without an AR15. Willeford used an AR15 and aimed between the Kevlar plates on Kelley's vest and hit him on the side of his torso. He himself says he would not have been able to accomplish that with a lesser gun. As for limits on ammo, gun control advocates at fond of arguing, "who needs so much". Well, while chasing the gunman, Willeford checked his magazine and saw he had only 2 shots left. That's scary. So basically, in this scenario, background checks failed and legislation on guns and ammo would have prevented the good guy with the gun to have been effective.

So what's my solution. First, we have to understand that we can't make magic and eliminate mad killers from the world. Also, but all solutions have to be government. Government dropped the ball here. The only other thing that could have made this a less tragic event was for there to be armed citizens in the church or an armed body guard. I think we have to be protecting our soft targets better. Schools, houses of worship, shopping centers etc. I do not understand why so many shuls do not have either an armed security guard or make sure that there are armed congregants. I know that some shuls in Israel, during high risk times, have a rotation to make sure there are a few armed congregants at all times.

I do see some shuls with armed security and some people do carry.

MagentaYenta

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 4:54 pm

zohar wrote:

True there was no one carrying at the church. So you're solution is to make it illegal for them to do it? shock

maybe instead, invoice people to exercise their right and protect their families and communities.

I had a carry permit for many years. Most licensing instructors are trained (by the NRA) to instruct individuals not to unholster their weapon in a crowd where there is shooting. It's hard for LE to tell the difference between good guys and bad guys. Yea ya might get lucky or some kid may stand up in your sights right after you pulled the trigger. Pursuit is an individual choice although I've never heard it advised in any NRA weapons course. I know that LE in my state don't advise it and I'm in a state where 40% of the adult population owns guns.

zohar

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 5:02 pm

MagentaYenta wrote:

Willeford himself is am NRA instructor and while it might be hard at times to discern who the good and bad guys are, in this case, and many others, it's quite obvious. People are also advised not to pull their guns because this makes them a target and are likely to get shot, but there are plenty of people who would take that risk such as Willeford.