The premise of that article is bullshit. He’s trying to argue that guns can’t protect us if they’re locked up, but if they aren’t locked up, they’re unsafe. In other words, he thinks he’s found a Catch 22!
From the article:
“Yet what seems like a common-sense safeguard runs contrary to the dominant rationale for gun ownership, which is self-defense. And the National Rifle Association has fostered an ideology of perpetual vigilance against nightmare scenarios such as home invasions. The gun industry caters to buyers motivated by fear of other people: Handgun manufacturer Glock, for instance, has marketed its weapons with ads that depict break-ins and other confrontations with criminals.”
The pistol I would use for self defense is locked in a very sturdy safe on my night stand, because I have a small child. It has a quick access combination that I can get into in 2 seconds, if my home was invaded in the middle of the night. If I had some reason to suspect my family and I were in danger, I could and would wear the pistol around the house in an appropriate holster. It’s either secured on my person or in that safe. The article doesn’t even mention this as a possibility. Just about all of the gun owners I know do the same.
The article also quotes a self declared “2nd amendment activist” who sleeps with his Glock laying beside his bed on the nightstand, unsecured as it were. But doesn’t mention if he has any small children. So is he endangering anyone? When I was single and lived alone I did the same thing.
sorry for coming off a little harsh, but is was more at the fact that you’re arguing against a point I’m not making while missing what I’m saying. I’m also not repeating ideas, you keep reading my mind and putting words in my mouth, it’s unnecessary.
That is so far from anything I’ve said I don’t really know what to make of it. I didn’t propose a lawsuit, I didn’t argue for the basis of the suit (specifically said that above).
I’ll try again with an analogy, I would be arguing against a lawsuit where they would sue the gun manufacturer for using a gun as a pull up bar and somebody got hurt. It wouldn’t make sense because the gun was not designed to be used as a pull up bar.
For the most part, kids are in school 180 days a year.
You’re welcome to examine the following to determine how many* people are coming into schools and killing multiple people(I know it’s wikipedia, and I haven’t gone through and thoroughly checked out everything listed-pay attention to the descriptions and what is counted as a “school shooting,” though ): List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia
*It could just be that our definitions of “a lot” are far different.
Remington was sued, and redesigned the trigger mechanism. But it is a case of guns themselves killing (or at least firing without a trigger pull, which did in fact kill several people).
People love the feel of the 700 trigger mechanism so much that after the redesign the original design went up in price a bunch on the used market. Remington was proven to know about the issue, with many memos from the mechanism’s designer. The designer even found a solution for under a dollar, but Remington rejected it because they were afraid of changing the feel of the trigger.
There’s my little lap dog. You’re a cunt and douche, but not nearly as stupid as your poor troll attempts paint you to be. Let’s pretend you are this dim… You’re still statistically and factually wrong. But keep on with the edge lord routine duuuuuude
When compared to other countries? The past? I’m fine with disagreeing on a lot though of course today was another one of those not a lots.
But you said you’d take a bat for murder. And even if you don’t think we have a lot of school shootings the number of dead kids in schools from guns dwarfs bat beatings. Which was my point.
But if bats are more effective then should we get rid of guns for personal protection?
Good thing we have actual statistics. Handguns are responsible for the most murders by far. Blunt objects were used to kill more people than rifles.
In schools, firearms are responsible for more deaths than blunt objects. In one on one killings, blunt objects were used 8% of the time and guns 63%. Knives were behind more deaths than blunt objects. Obviously in mass shootings, guns were used.
So yes, gun deaths in schools do indeed dwarf bat deaths.
Everyone likes to talk about “gun deaths,” but I still question whether they account for more than a tiny fraction of homicides. Bullet/projectile deaths seem somewhat common, but I can’t recall hearing about many gun deaths.
I can always look into that, as can you, on the CDC and FBI sites. But as far as schools go, guns have been used to murder more kids than any other weapon.
How often have you heard about bat deaths in schools? What are you actually doubting? Or just being obtuse by saying “guns don’t kill people but bullets might.”