dagblog - Comments for "Welcome To #Amurdica"

Apparently you have a problem

ocean-kat — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 19:20:28 +0000

In reply to I note in the CDC links from

Apparently you have a problem with reading comprehension. I've never claimed nor even implied that we don't need to worry about gun injuries or deaths because more people die in motor vehicle accidents or accidental poisonings. In fact I've repeatedly said the complete opposite. Over and over again for years I've posted that I support strict gun control legislation. Creating strawmen to knock down is easy so I can see why you prefer it but it doesn't constitute an actual debate.

Let's look at what the debate really is about. You posted just a few posts above, "The responsible gun owner set is, in fact, a very small fraction of gun owners" This is the issue I disagreed with. Statistics can help us find what is "in fact" most likely. When motor vehicle accidents and accidental poisonings exceed the total number of gun deaths including suicides and homicides and even people dying from slipping and falling is so nearly equal that it some years exceeds gun deaths it seems clear that the evidence supports the conclusion that the vast majority of gun owners responsibly store and handle their guns.

Again I'll ask: Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that "in fact" the responsible gun owner is a very small fraction of gun owners. Because it seems to me that when you say "in fact" what you really mean is shit I made up then pulled out of my ass.

I note in the CDC links from

NCD — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 06:59:08 +0000

In reply to Another totally asinine post.

I note in the CDC links from the bibliography of your link shows unintentional injury due to guns is higher than poisoning in multiple age groups, from 1-4, 5-9 and 10-14 for the US in 2013.

I didn't bother to check them for all ages and years but your deft use of statistics fails there.

Anyway, hanging onto a statistic that a given cause of injury or death is not so bad as another cause of death or injury and death, and thereby trying to demean safety measures related to the former, is, frankly, as asinine a form of half wit reasoning one is likely to encounter on the internet. Like "The wife and me don't worry 'bout the kids drowning in the lake cuz statistics say more kids die in car accidents'.

And BTW you might mention why my points of (1) treating a gun as a lethal weapon (2) using it for proscribed uses (like target practice, hunting) (3) in an area safe for that use and (4) by persons familiar with its operation and concluding with (5) storing it unloaded, preferably locked up (not mandatory if no kids around) somehow transforms in your mind to taking your guns away, or saying all gun owners are irresponsible when I am sure millions follow those very steps in securing or using their weapons.

A shame we let Michael Moore

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 04:21:11 +0000

In reply to Maintaining is a good word.

A shame we let Michael Moore get sidelined as our too-crazy-to-go-out-in-public liberal. He was one of the few voices who knew how to cut through against the right-wing money media machine. Wonder what we got in return for knee-capping him.

Another totally asinine post.

ocean-kat — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 21:16:16 +0000

In reply to Of course you are a

Another totally asinine post. Being a gun owner doesn't prove one is a responsible gun owner except in your mind where being a gun owner proves one is irresponsible. And since I clearly posted that I have no worries that you and others like you will ever ban guns I'm already relaxed. So this was a completely unresponsive and ignorant post.

You're consistently like a rat hanging onto a chunk of cheese. When confronted by inconvenient facts you not only refuse to let go, most often you refuse to even attempt to make a rational rebuttal or any counter argument at all.

My idea of responsibility is

NCD — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:01:18 +0000

In reply to I don't know about NCD, but

My idea of responsibility is the same as yours. Responsibility means recognizing how dangerous a gun is, ensuring it can only be used in a proscribed fashion, in a safe area by a person familiar with its operation. And it is not stored loaded, preferably is locked up.

As to folks shooting near your home, we had a home on 4 acres in a part of the Tucson Mts within the city of Tucson, and yahoos would come up to an area nearby to plunk off rounds.

One time we called the police and, through binoculars, we saw the cops approach them with guns drawn and aimed, and had the idiots spread eagled on the ground while the cops recovered the guns. Illegal to shoot in city limits.

Of course you are a

NCD — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:00:11 +0000

In reply to The level of ignorance

Of course you are a responsible gun owner. Being a gun owner proves it.

And no one is going to take away your guns, so relax.

The level of ignorance

ocean-kat — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 19:38:21 +0000

In reply to My idea of responsibility is

The level of ignorance displayed here is astonishing. The reality is that accidental poisonings kill more people every year than all the homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. Accidental poisonings also kill more people than motor vehicle accidents. By your standards it would save more lives and make more sense to require all households to keep all household chemicals in a secured locked storage container. The truth is that most gun owners store their guns much more responsibly than people store their poisonous chemicals. Children that accidentally kill or injure someone with a gun is a fraction of children that kill or injure themselves with household chemicals.

I'm not worried that you'll succeed in banning guns. That will never happen. What worries me as a responsible gun owner that favors strict gun control legislation is that your nonsensical ranting will alienate other responsible gun owners from supporting reasonable gun control laws by convincing them the myth that democrats want to ban guns is true.

I don't know about NCD, but

Oxy Mora — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 14:15:00 +0000

In reply to The responsible gun owner set

I don't know about NCD, but "responsibility" is in the eye of the beholder and my rule #1 is that guns be locked in gun safes. You don't want to know the rest of my rules but I'll eat my hat if more than 10% of gun owners have their firearms in safes.

270 million guns, 89 guns per 100 people in U.S.

At least, according to my research, 35 million households have guns. Actually, the number of households with guns appears to be going down.

115,000,000 households in U.S.

Number of NRA members, about 5 million.

The Luntz poll therefore focusing on a small percentage of households with guns.

I think many NRA members are responsible, especially hunters, as most of my friends in rural Texas are. I would eat my other hat if they didn't consistently vote for politicians who are in the tank for the NRA's crusade against what they say they believe about more restrictions.

I have some guys who shoot guns pretty close to my property line and its an irritation. They are within their rights and I've decided not to make an issue out of it. If it gets any worse I'm going to blast Met Opera at them at 4:00 a.m.

The responsible gun owner set

ocean-kat — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 07:27:46 +0000

In reply to Good critique on 'the shooter

The responsible gun owner set is, in fact, a very small fraction of gun owners

In fact, really? How about you verify the "fact" with a link. Imo the majority of gun owners behave responsibly. I base that opinion on the small number of gun shootings or accidents compared to the number of gun owners. In fact, guns owners support some of the proposed gun control legislation.

A glaringly obvious place to

barefooted — Thu, 08 Oct 2015 01:43:50 +0000

In reply to That's a great point,

A glaringly obvious place to start would be a focus on the existing Brady law and its ridiculous lack of data - specifically state data - needed for comprehensive background checks. A few ads pointedly aimed at some particularly slow-moving-but-well-paid states wouldn't hurt. And since gun manufacturers and lobbys love to say we don't need more laws when the ones we have aren't working/enforced, who would argue?

Speaking of enforcement, President Obama made the oft-quoted statement in early 2013 that since the passage of the Brady law background checks had prevented 1.5 million people from legally purchasing a gun. True enough, and that was over 2 years ago. Even considering the easy assumption that a majority still managed to get one, it also means at least a measurable minority were stopped. Unfortunately, when the check uncovers someone potentially dangerous, very little happens.

So. Let's start where we are. Strengthen the hard fought laws we have, find areas to firm them up and do it and then follow up when a "bad guy" gives him/herself away.