Summations Only

You may have heard about the Southern California man who was put under 72-hour psychiatric observation when it was found he owned 100 guns and allegedly had 100,000 rounds of ammunition stored in his home. The house also featured a secret escape tunnel.By Southern California standards, someone owning 100,000 rounds is considered "mentally unstable".In Michigan, he'd be called "The last white guy still living in Detroit."In Minnesota & Wisconsin, he’d be called ALMOST ready for deer season".In Arizona, he'd be called "An avid gun collector."In Arkansas, he'd be called "A novice gun collector."In Utah, he'd be called "Moderately well prepared," but they'd probably reserve judgment until they made sure that he had a corresponding quantity of stored food.In Kansas, he'd be "A guy down the road you would want to have for a friend."In Montana, he'd be called "The neighborhood 'go-to' guy."In Alabama, he'd be called "A likely gubernatorial candidate."In Georgia, he'd be called "An eligible bachelor."In North Carolina, Virginia, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky and South Carolina he would be called "A deer hunting buddy."And in Texas he'd just be "Bubba, who's a little short on ammo."

If you've ever wondered how people grow up to be Responsible Gun Owners, it's because they have Responsible parents who teach them to be Responsible when they're kids. As is illustrated by this Isolated Incident.A child may be several years to young to drive, or vote, or drink a beer, but if you get him a lethal weapon for Christmas he'll suddenly become Responsible.

Dragnet: A Gun for Christmas. Remember when TV cops didn't shoot somebody in every episode?

Page not found | USUNCUT - US News | Breaking News | Latest News TodayCampus concealed carry advocate gunned down in home.

And just how does NC hold adults responsible in such a case.From the article:

quote:

---

State law says all guns must be properly stored when unsupervised children are in the home. Beaufort County Chief Deputy Charlie Rose says they are looking to see if that law applies in this case and whether any charges should be filed.

---

Interesting. Let's see what the law actually says:

quote:

---

Pursuant to state law, any person who resides with a minor and owns or possesses a firearm stored or left: 1) in a condition in which it can be discharged; and 2) in a manner that the person knew or should have known that an unsupervised minor would be able to gain access to the firearm, is criminally liable for a misdemeanor if the minor gains access to the firearm and:

​

Possesses the firearm on educational property;
Exhibits the firearm in a public place in a careless, angry or threatening manner;
Causes personal injury or death with the firearm, except in self-defense; or
Uses the firearm in the commission of a crime.

---

That's right. Someone is potentially guilty of a misdemeanor. Maybe. I'm betting that nobody will be charged.

Another heart-warming tale of Responsibility. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...d-a-gun-with-tragic-results Yeah, this doesn't end well. But hey, $60 profit on the sale of the gun, so that's a silver lining.

Perhaps not a surprise, but some of the statistics are quite shocking.- 6% of firearm-related deaths were fatalities from accidental gun injuries.
- About 19 children a day die or are medically treated in an emergency department for a gunshot wound in the US.
- The study found a 60% increase in gun suicides from 2007-15
- more than 90% of all children ages 14 and up who were killed by guns in high-income countries resided in the US.Guns kill 1,300 US children every year, study finds - BBC NewsEdited by Heathen, : No reason given.

Such statistics aren't really meaningful unless we know something about the circumstances.

There are no circumstances in which children being killed by guns is acceptable.

Of course I said nothing of the sort. Is that the best you can do?

So what isn't "meaningful" about 1300 children, dead, per year.Do you seriously believe that if guns weren't so freely available that there would still be 1300 dead children, due to gunshots/wounds (legally held or otherwise) every year?
if the answer to that is no, then you must support better gun control.how many dead children is it worth to have the freedom to carry a gun? what's the number?
At what point would you hypothetically say "right, that's enough, take the guns off the streets"is there a threshold?Do you accept any connection whatsoever between the number of guns in circulation and the number of gun deaths?

I'd want to know how responsible or irresponsible the owners were, mainly, what kind of training they'd had, and that sort of thing. I don't see how just tallying accidents tells us anything unless we know those things.

As Dr A and others have shown throughout this thread, it matters not how "responsible" or "proficient" a gun owner thinks he/she is/isn't.
accidents continue to happen, mistakes continue to be made.As long as there are guns in homes across the US, this will continue to be the case.Not to mention intentional killings/suicides.

quote:

---

what kind of training they'd had

---

are you hinting that you may support restricting gun ownership to those with adequate training?Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.

I'm for anything that makes guns safer. Taking away guns from Americans is not an option so whatever makes them safer is what we need.