Do you even know what the word "genocide" means? I ask, because you use it so freely and so improperly. You should double check your understanding. Reading what you actually *write* in situations like this make you even harder to understand than usual.

eta:

I've got it! You sound like tw when you write like this. You use "genocide" like he uses "wacko extremists". You both just plug that in when you feel some kind of stress--it's like a toddler that sucks his thumb. He's not actually hungry, but it feels so good. The biggest difference between your usage of "genocide" and tw's use of "wacko extremist" is that he's stating an opinion, while you're just misusing a word that has an objective definition. You know better, but you don't let that stop you.

An American tourist was almost genocided in Canada recently.

Yep, get rid of guns and everything will be just fine. Then, all I have to worry about is someone breaking into my house or approaching me on the street with...a knife, a sword, a golf club, a baseball bat, a 2x4 with nails embedded, a vicious dog, their fists, etc. None of those can be used to kill me. And luckily, I will have my hands and maybe some keys to defend myself. I noticed that nobody (at least in this thread) mentioned a recent spree killing in China using.....wait for it....a knife.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...826406388.html

One could argue that, had someone been carry a legally concealed weapon, they could have mitigated the damage the nut in CO. was causing.

My two cents as a supported of the Second Amendment and responsible gun owner. YMMV.

Huh? Say what?

Thank you BigV.

Given the vast weapon technologies now available including everyone's fav - WMD's - there is no way a group targeted for genocide or even just collateral damage can defend itself against a powerful government. Or even a not so powerful one.

But feel free to acquire all the rocket launchers and tanks you can get your grubby hands on. :rolleyes:

- Bruce Cockburn

The point is being missed here.

Sikhs are pacifists and wouldn't carry a gun even if they COULD.

Bin Laden lover!

Not entirely true.

Close to home - 15yr old shot

This boy is a friend of my D16, they go to school together and he has been to my home. They're all my daughter's friends, actually.

The story I got from Michael Owens (my daughter's boyfriend and who was interviewed in the above article) was that a girl, another friend, stole the loaded gun from an unlocked car. She, Ryan, and another teen were playing with it and had actually removed the clip. But, being stupid kids, they didn't know there was still a bullet chambered. She pointed the gun at Ryan and he tried to knock her hand away, causing it to go off. The hollow point entered through his mouth and blew the side of his face off. So he's in ICU and stable, but will require extensive reconstructive surgery.

From what I understand, the girl will be charged with something (probably waiting to see if Ryan lives) as will the owner of the loaded gun left in an unlocked car.

All the kids involved in the incident as well as friends are very sobered and saddened.

Unless someone beat me to it...I believe there are Sikhs who serve in the U.S. military. in fact, they fought to be able to wear their (forgive my ignorance) head apparel.

The Wikipedia on "Sikh" is a very good read on their history, religion,
and particularly their tolerance of other peoples.

But becoming warriors was thrust upon them
... and they became very good at it !

What Lamplighter said. Also, there was quite the Sikh empire around the 1600's and they didn't hang on to it by all holding hands and singing Kumbaya.

Sikh warrior's helmet from that same time period.

Not stupid, uneducated. If they had been acclimated to proper gun safety it probably wouldn't have happened.

Exactly, Bruce. I was raised around guns and taught to respect them. When I went to a gun shop recently to look for a new gun, the shop owner commented that it was obvious to him that I grew up around guns. I asked him how. He said how I handled the gun...not putting my finger on the trigger, pointing it away from people, checking that it was unloaded after he handed it to me even though I had just seen him clear it. Some people were just not taught not to play with guns and they pay the price.

Yep, the safety of guns is directly related to the gun culture.

I'll take my chances against a knife, a sword, a golf club, a baseball bat, a 2x4 with nails embedded, a vicious dog, fists rather than a gun, how about you?

One could argue that the damage could have been mitigated if the guy hadn't had a gun. The damage would have been mitigated if he'd only had a knife, a sword, a golf club, a baseball bat, a 2x4 with nails embedded, a vicious dog, or his fists.

Then:

I'll take my chances against a knife, a sword, a golf club, a baseball bat, a 2x4 with nails embedded, a vicious dog, fists rather than a gun, how about you?

That is entirely up to you, Spexxvet. I'll keep my guns to defend myself and my family, thank you.

One could argue that the damage could have been mitigated if the guy hadn't had a gun. The damage would have been mitigated if he'd only had a knife, a sword, a golf club, a baseball bat, a 2x4 with nails embedded, a vicious dog, or his fists.

We can play this game all day. One could argue that the guy could have killed even more people if had opened the door and started chucking in molotav cocktails. The bottom line is that the theater owners had posted signs stating guns are not allowed. As a result, nobody there was carrying their own concealed weapon and could stop the guy. As for those signs, it is not illegal for you to ignore them. It is simply a matter of breaking the company's policy, not a law. If they were to find out that you were carrying a concealed (legal) handgun (which they shouldn't if it is CONCEALED), they can only ask you to leave. If you do so without arguing, etc...you are NOT breaking any laws. Criminals know that a gun free zone equates to a target rich environment.

As for the last part...are you saying that, if you own a gun and use it to kill someone (illegally of course, not self defense), you should be executed immediately? What about if I use a knife? Dead is dead, right? As for negligence, what if I hit someone with my car and kill them? Dead is dead, right? Should I be immediately executed for that as well? It's an illogical argument.

You won't change my mind and I know I won't change yours. but that's what is so great about this country.

Is that true? I'm not so sure. If you walk past a "no tresspassing" sign, do you get a second verbal warning before you can be arrested for tresspassing? No.

If a private property has a sign that says in effect "anyone carrying a gun is tresspassing," then why do they get a second warning? Tresspassing is about entering a private property without permission, and in the gun case, a person carrying a gun does not have permission.

Fine, you have your gun. Do you want to protect yourself against someone with a knife, a sword, a golf club, a baseball bat, a 2x4 with nails embedded, a vicious dog, fists, or someone with a gun? Please don't be evasive.

I am one of the lucky few who has never had to confront a criminal in my own home.
Phew. With no gun I've no doubt I would have been bludgeoned to death every weekend for years save for this fact.

Anyway.

When I first heard about the shooting in Oak Creek I said confidently to Mum, "It'll be a community issue. Sikh on Sikh, personal. Because no-one messes with Sikhs." All the Sikh men I've known (bar one very extreme exception that proved the rule) were big, burly and radiated an inner peace-man-but-don't-fuck-with-me vibe.

I was wrong. Didn't mean I was any less shocked.
I had a Sikh temple in the road behind me when I lived in Leicester.
The idea of those people being gunned down makes me feel physically sick.

Let me preface this by saying that I work for a law firm and do have attorneys at my disposal to ask such questions. Your trespassing example is correct. I can be arrested for coming onto your property against your No Trespassing sign. However, in the theater example, you are an invited guest. Again, you cannot be arrested for breaking their policy. They can ask you to leave an not come back. If you refused to leave (which would be stupid), you could be charged with something like disorderly conduct. Or, if you returned after being asked to leave, that could be trespassing. The attorney I asked used the example of sneaking food or drink into the theater. They have signs prohibiting it. Will you be arrested for it? No...you will be asked to leave. You cannot be trespassing if you are an invited guest.

I'm not being evasive. I will admit I would much rather defend myself against someone with anything other than a gun. But, look at any country which has banned guns...they still get them. And with our porous border? My God...guns would be flying over the border. So, you will never get rid of guns 100%...ever. Never mind the fact that no politician would ever seriously get beyond the point of election year rhetoric as far as trying to reverse the 2nd Amendment. Besides losing that election, that would be the start of another revolution.

And I'm with you, Sundae. Someone who does something like that to other human beings is not fit to live among the rest of us humans. The same thing with the theater in Colorado.

Those of us who choose to take advantage of our 2nd Amendment right to own guns are not unfeeling, irresponsible or insane (as many anti-gun people want to you to believe) In fact, carrying a gun makes us MORE cautious and conscience of out actions. Example: I get into a shouting match with a guy in another car. He pulls over and so do I. A fight breaks out and he pulls a knife. I pull my gun and shoot him. Was I in my right to do so? Technically, yes. However, a judge would rule that, had I not pulled over, the fight would not have happened. Had the fight not happened, he would not have pulled the knife. Had he not pulled the knife, I would not have pulled my gun and shot him. I am someone who has read countless books about the legal issues associated with carrying a concealed weapon. See, we realize what a huge responsibility it is. We're not all trying to John Wayne.

Yeah. I'm still not convinced.

You're an invited guest when you buy your ticket and agree to the conditions of the ticket sale. The ticket probably even has legal mumbo jumbo on the back that says that by puchasing the ticket you consent to the rules. If you don't actually consent to the rules, then you aren't an invited guest.

That doesn't mean they are gonna arrest you for sneaking food in, because they don't want bad publicity.

I see this incident less as a gun story than a how unbelievably stupid the folks in the neo-nazi movement are story. This is apparently the story of failed education from school through Fort Bragg where he apparently hooked up with the White Power movement and was actually involved in psy-ops. Dude was on law enforcements radar because of his racist music. I am more concerned with race terrorism than guns.

You sound like a whiny crybaby when you say things like this. Oh, waaah, they're calling me unfeeling, irresponsible, insane. If that kind of "attack" is a problem for you, there's a super easy solution--stop "taking advantage of (part of) our 2nd amendment right". Easy peasy.

Ahem.

Unless you're a fucking homicidal nutball like the asshole in CO and in WI. Your argument is faulty, sir. Carrying a gun does NOT make one MORE cautious and conscientious of one's actions. You may well be cautious and conscientious before and after carrying a gun, but it's not the gun that does it.

Completely. I didn't come here to raise a gun issue.
Just wanted to comment on slaughter, however it was achieved.

Sadness.

You sound like a whiny crybaby when you say things like this. Oh, waaah, they're calling me unfeeling, irresponsible, insane. If that kind of "attack" is a problem for you, there's a super easy solution--stop "taking advantage of (part of) our 2nd amendment right". Easy peasy.

Nice argument. When you start resorting to name calling, it's a sign you're losing the argument.


Ahem.

Unless you're a fucking homicidal nutball like the asshole in CO and in WI. Your argument is faulty, sir. Carrying a gun does NOT make one MORE cautious and conscientious of one's actions. You may well be cautious and conscientious before and after carrying a gun, but it's not the gun that does it.

Let me ask you a question. Have you EVER carried a concealed weapon? If not, your argument is faulty because you can't speak from experience. I've been through it, so don't pretend that you know what you're talking about. I had a road rage incident where the guy was literally pounding on the steering wheel trying to get me to pull over. Why didn't I pull over, smart guy? Because I was aware of something called disparity of force as escalation of force. I did not want to put myself in the situation of possibly having to use my gun so I used evasive driving and lost the guy. So, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't try to act like you do. You just look stupid.

Then where's the fun in packing heat?:rolleyes:

BTW, what did you do to piss him off, and did you do it because you knew, in the back of your mind, that you had a gun to back up your shit?

Now you see, Spex...there you go again ASSuming. Why do you ASSume that I purposefully did something to piss him off? Because I had a gun? If that was the case, why would I have gone out of my way to avoid the guy? Actually, he was trying to pass everyone before the two lanes narrowed to one. He did not make it in time and had to get behind me. That sent him into an uncontrolled rage. I have never seen someone act like that behind the wheel. I seriously though he was going to ram me. I'll admit, I was scared. That's why I did NOT stop...I know what would have happened.

Your complaints sound whiny. There's no "argument".

Am I losing my other "argument" by calling the shooters in CO and WI "fucking homicidal nutball assholes"? Just curious.


I have not carried a concealed weapon.

I do not concede the point that a lack of direct experience means my argument is faulty. You and I both live our lives, speak and act correctly and with confidence in a multitude of situations where we have no direct experience. It is not a deal breaker. We can debate this point, but only if you insist.

What I think you're saying is that by having your gun with you, you knew there was a pretty good possibility you might have to shoot to kill if you faced off with him, and you didn't want that to happen, so you took other measures. Does that sound right? Here's my question: what the fuck does the gun have to do with anything in that situation with respect to being more cautious and conscientious? If you didn't have your gun, would you have pulled over and taken your chances? If you didn't have your gun could/would you have used evasive driving and lost the guy?

Are you less cautious and conscientious when you are not carrying your gun? That's my question.

If your answer is yes, then you fucking scare me. "I need my gun to keep me calm". JFC.

If your answer is no, then your argument is invalid. You're cautious and conscientious WITH your concealed weapon, AND you're cautious and conscientious WITHOUT your weapon. Which was my original point. It isn't the gun. (and if it is, and I think it might be for some people, heaven help us all).

There are lots of things I don't know--talking about them is part of how I learn about them. There are lots of things I know *some* stuff about, and I talk about them too. This subject falls into that category. Specifically, what makes people cautious, and what doesn't make people cautious; things that are dangerous and things that are less dangerous. So, I'm clear to speak and act in this kind of discussion, with authority. I do know what I'm talking about.

By your own logic, you're losing your argument. Unless you just think I look stupid. Which is fine, no? You sound whiny, and I look stupid. I'll make you a deal--you stop looking at me and I'll quit listening to you.

Sure, you were completely innocent.

Oh Spexx, shove it up your liberal, gun-hating ass. It must be nice to know everything. You should run for Messiah.

Big V, we will agree to disagree. You'll just twist any explanation I counter with to paint me as a gun-toting psycho. So, we'll just leave it there.

I respectfully disagree BigV. While you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts and the fact is that you can't read the minds of people while they are carrying guns to know whether or not they take the responsibility seriously enough to adjust their behaviors accordingly.

I've carried concealed firearms both off duty and on duty, both in the US and other countries as a representative of the US. I've always had a heightened sense of the ramifications of my actions due to the complexities that carrying a lethal weapon introduces into my routine, ramifications that aren't there when I'm not carrying.

I also have a heightened sense of the ramifications of my actions when I'm driving a car as opposed to riding a bicycle, roller skating; or, jogging as I know that running into someone with a car is far more likely to have serious consequences in the way of morbidity and mortality.

The situation is similar when using power tools and I believe it applies to most people. These behavior trends don't just disappear for the sake of a position in a debate. Using those people who are exceptions in the aforementioned situations to extrapolate a generality discredits the position for me.

To others reading this thread:

I have not said I think anyone posting here is a gun-toting psycho, nor do I think it without saying it. I think dmg, for example, is cautious and conscientious. I believe the overwhelming majority of gun owners are. Were it otherwise, we'd have a lot more horror stories like the ones in the news recently.

Though dmg has withdrawn, I'd like to take the point he made, the one that is made by others all over the place "I'm more cautious with my gun" (paraphrasing). I honestly believe that's true, but it's true because any reasonable person understands that the presence of a gun makes any given situation more dangerous, therefore justifying more caution. Because of the steepness of the transition between threat and death with guns, reasonable people take extra care. That's a very good thing.

But because it is more dangerous with guns around, that extra caution should include PREcautions. There are many precautions possible. Training, locks, locked cases, strict attention are some examples. I should also include careful consideration of who gets access to guns. And I believe they should be restricted to cautious, conscientious people, like dmg. To attempt to say the presence of a gun makes things safer is just faulty. It isn't the gun that's the danger, right, it's the person. So it should be the person that is subject to much greater scrutiny, if safety truly is one's goal.

dmg, I'm happy to disagree with you, but I think we're not arguing the same point.

well, sexobon, you're right. I don't have my own private facts, and I don't know to four decimal places the state of mind of other people. your analogy about power tools is a good one. I'm careful when I use them, but I'm careful anyhow. we were both composing our posts at the same time it appears.

My point is that care is due because stakes are higher; the situation has greater potential for serious consequences in very short timeframes when guns are present. My nephew just bought a car, his first. I'm kinda terrified for him because his personal local danger quotient just leapt higher. I told him, no offense, but distraction, impairment and inexperience are the greatest factors in teenage car accidents. They don't have to be fatal to be horrific. So I begged him, until he gains more experience, slow the fuck down. Margin for error is his best, his only substitute for experience until he gains it. (No drinking period or **I* will personally kick his ass; put the goddamn iphone in the trunk when you're driving). I digress.

Since things can go from "grrrrr" to "holyshit what just happened" in an ohnosecond, greater caution is needed to avoid tragedy. But not everyone has adequate __________ (I don't know the quality here. brains? restraint? whatever) to exercise such a right responsibly. We have a lot of rights, and I'd like to avoid devolving into a constitutional pissing match for the moment, but there are few rights when exercised irresponsibly have such serious consequences *for other people*, namely, those being shot, than the right to bear arms.

It's an important right, and those who exercise it bear a proportionally serious responsibility. How can those of us who want to avoid being shot improve that likelihood? I don't think I'm at risk from you, or from dmg. But there are plenty of people who do represent a greater risk to *my* right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness. We have rules about who can get access to controlled substances, you need a note from your doctor to get your hands on some things that risk only personal, individual danger, not to other people. We all know how george zimmerman answers that question, I reject his method. What do you say can be done, or should be done about tragedies like what happened in CO and in WI?

Saying that having a gun makes you more cautious is like saying
that carrying a match in the forest makes you more cautious,
or having an electrical wire in your hand makes you more cautious.
It's superficially true, but in the heat of an event such caution can be lost.

This "Having my CCL (gun) makes me more cautious" argument is literally
making the rounds on the internet among gun-advocate web sites,
and Joe Zamudio is their latest CCL-hero.
They say that he exercised caution and good judgment when he
came to the aid of Rep Gifford in Arizona.
Some of their statements are factual wrong.
And they don't expose one important detail...

MSNBC
Armed Giffords hero nearly shot wrong man
I'm not denigrating Joe Zamudio. In fact, I was very impressed by him
in interviews at the time where he said his frame of mind was that
he was prepared to his gun, and was only stopped by the shouts of the crowd.

My point is that it is only fantasy to suggest that having a gun will
make a person cautious and rational.
I think it's just as easy to imagine a fantasy of a Mexican Standoff,
or shooting an innocent person... or yourself.

Can lose caution? 1% of situations where people losing caution is a hell of a lot different than 99% of situations. Your statement has no merit since you are using anecdotes and what if scenarios. In the vast majority of situations, the scene will not be complete chaos.


Seriously, to both sides, it all depends on gun culture. When some people (lets call them Type A) get a hold of guns, they realize the power of the weapon they are holding and will become more cautious. They will not do anything stupid and will avoid confrontations unless absolutely necessary. Guns in the hands of these people, in general (I repeat....in general), will make society safer.

When other people (lets call them Type B) get a hold of guns, they realize the power of the weapon and power trip. They will be very confrontational and will enforce their status with guns. Gun in the hands of these people, in general, will make society more dangerous.


Both sides of the gun debate argument talk about different types of people.

Also, complete gun control in the US is a fantasy due to our gun culture. Both Type A and Type B people prefer guns and banning will just push guns further underground, as it did with drugs and alcohol.

To make the US safer with guns, it has to strictly regulated. In order to possess a firearm, classes and licenses (like driving) need to be obtained. If you are caught with a firearm without a license, the penalty should be harsh since there should be NO excuse for carrying without a license.

This is not a perfect solution but both sides need to acknowledge that their views are far from ideal as well.

Drivers, both novice and experienced, benefit from defensive driving courses that teach them how to recognize potential threats and methods to avoid those becoming actual threats. The practice is accepted to the point where some auto insurance companies even give a discount to drivers who complete an accredited course and money talks. There are naysayers who contend that they should neither have to go to all that trouble to protect themselves from bad drivers nor have to carry uninsured motorist insurance coverage and perhaps that's true; however, the consequences of acting on that premise are prohibitive and those who don't drive defensively or carry the added insurance are generally construed to be deficient in judgment.

Military, police, and even some private security firms train their people to recognize others who's behaviors indicate they may be carrying concealed weapons and they teach methods for avoiding those who present as potential threats to keep them from becoming actual threats. The civilian population generally hasn't caught up with this despite the practice being accepted by those who face such risks professionally.

There are several reasons for maintaining the status quo: As with drivers, a lot of people simply don't think that the burden should be on them to learn avoidance measures. Police don't see their tax dollar allocations go up for teaching people how not to be victims (their allocations go up when there are more victims). There probably isn't enough demand to support commercial classes. There's no financial incentive, like discounts on life and medical insurance, for being trained in this type of threat recognition since the frequency of insurance providers saving on payouts is much lower than for something like drivers' claims.

Unfortunately, people need to realize that we're not going to eliminate guns from society anymore than we're going to eliminate cars. The onus is on themselves to recognize and avoid potential threats from shooters just as practical people have learned to recognize and avoid potential threats from drivers. Either that; or, fall by the wayside.
Done.

That is my point. I picked your quote because you were the last person to post but both sides of the gun control debate have a strong tendency to solely cite anecdotes or be completely speculative. As you mentioned, it is impossible to statistically measure the complete impact of guns into positive and negative categories that can be compared. All we have is gun crime statistics, anecdotes, and speculation, all of which are heavily biased and do not give a good picture of the problem. That is why I am trying to frame this debate in a different manner.

No, the context is correct. I am saying that because I personally sometimes fall under that category. I think fighting is stupid but I like to mess with people and see how far I can take it. It is usually in good fun but it is possible to hit a nerve and get a defensive response out of someone, especially when alcohol is involved. However, if I was a carrying a gun with me, I would never do anything that could potentially get a defensive response out of someone because I know it could escalate quickly and put me in a very bad situation.

I made no assertion because this is the discussion that I would like to see. There is no numerical equation but framing it in this way at least shows forces everyone to acknowledge both sides.

If I had a guess, I would say certain regions of the US have many more Type A people than Type B and other regions of the US have many more Type B people than Type A. Once again, it depends on the gun culture of the particular location. That is why I am against any federal gun control ban (besides overly powerful weapons). What may work for New York City will probably not work for Wyoming and vice versa. Gun control laws should be local.

It was a hyperbole. I made the point that it is currently not politically possible for the government to completely ban guns in the US.

I agree. They have a very negative role in this.

This is the internet equivalent of cutting the guy off. Now say "I didn't do anything to make anybody mad". You cut the guy off, because you're self-righteous and the guy was being a dick trying to get ahead of you before the construction, and he should just get behind you in the line of traffic like all the other sheep. And you figured you could do it because if push came to shove, you could protect yourself with your gun. After you calmed down, you realized what a jackass you'd been, and acted like a pussy by running away. We've all done it, just without the gun part. Admit it... you'll feel better.

I'm a liberal, gun-hater? It must be nice to know everything.

I don't need to run for Messiah. I AM the Messiah. You'd better get your shit together or I WILL be sending you to eternal damnation.

For the record, I don't hate guns. I believe that our society needs to take steps to reduce the chance that innocent people will get murdered. It seems to me that, while it won't eliminate it, reducing the number of handguns and assault weapons in the general population is a good start.

Talk of the Nation did a show on guns last week. A lot of it was from a public health perspective. Interesting factoid 60% of gun deaths are suicides. I found this page from the AFSP.

Firearms and Suicide

Although most gun owners reportedly keep a firearm in their home for "protection" or "self defense," 83 percent of gun-related deaths in these homes are the result of a suicide, often by someone other than the gun owner.
Firearms are used in more suicides than homicides.
Death by firearms is the fastest growing method of suicide.
Firearms account for 50 percent of all suicides.

I guess to me an interesting stat would be home invasions thwarted, although I couldn't guess what percentage of those are reported.

I see two competing narratives here which make us all less safe. The left demonizes guns to the point where people are prevented from being exposed to a culture of safe handling of firearms, while the right pretends that gun owners are by and large well trained at handling firearms. I'd like to see some thought go into reducing that suicide number.

Not being a wise ass, but why? People should be allowed to commit suicide if they want. Frankly, I see suicide as a responsible use of firearms.

I agree with your point with respect to adults, but I see teens as a different situation. That said, I had an older multiple addicted cousin hang himself in his late teens, a gun may have provided a far less traumatic end.

If I'd had access to a gun during my lowest moments I think I would have committed suicide.
Not suggesting it as a reason for gun control, just saying what I think.

When I went to counselling the PSO asked how I invisaged suicide. Shooting myself under my right jaw. I would even probe the spot while imagining it. I must have seen it somewhere when a person was being held hostage - I have no idea if it is an effective spot, but it was very real to me.

It was very reassuring to the PSO; despite counting as suicidal thoughts it was still a suicidal fantasy, given that I had no way of acquiring a gun. At that stage I couldn't even use a phone (I had special dispensation to make walk-in appointments, turning up after a 1.5m walk).

Do you have any restrictions on over the counter drugs commonly used in suicides?
We do.

You can go to every pharmacy in town and buy the maximum allowable of course, but it is hoped that by the time you have queued up behind the methadone patients and the old giffers querying why their their tablets are a different colour, and the women with screaming babies, you will realise that some people have it worse than you.

Drugs are very heavily regulated in the States. I would guess that a lot of over the counter stuff in GB is regulated here. We are a strange place with our talk of liberty. Even dying patients have to squirrel away pills to control their end of life.

I'm thinking Paracetemol, which from reading American books equates with Tylenol?

So they'd die of internal bleeding and liver failure? I'd rather they had access to an opiate or a gun.

We don't regulate tylenol or some cold medicines but that sounds like a terrible road.

What leads you to say this ?

I've no idea when or how or who, among liberals or anyone else, is preventing education or gun safety.
For example, the NRA/Boy Scouts/hunting clubs/local police/ etc have public gun-safety events,
and I've never heard about anyone complaining or opposing them.

If by "exposed to a culture", you mean everyone should have their own gun,
or parents should always allow their children to play in houses where there are guns,
or everyone should go hunting, or the such, maybe you have a point.

I agree we are very polarized on this issue. But as liberals go,
I feel they live their lives in tolerance of current laws, but maybe working to change them.
But "demonizing", No...
(Well, except I do demonize the NRA --- but only because they deserve it. :rolleyes:)

I do see the liberals-on-this-issue trying to use the statistical data that has been gathered
over the years by public health institutions to convince others of
the unnecessary (<-my word) deaths and harm that comes via guns.

I find it ironic that with all it's $, the NRA does not buy gun-safety
PSA's (public service announcements) on radio or TV,
the way electric companies tell people to not touch electric wires.
Instead, the NRA is devoted to... Well, you know what NRA is devoted to.

You mention suicide and home invasions.
For many years, there have been very large, multi-state, annual
surveys by the Feds trying to put numbers on such catagories.
Suicides are easy to count, as are hospital/ER admittances due to gun shot.
Home invasions - not so much - but they do try to sort out if a gun was present/used/deterred
and the data is NOT there to support what the gun community wants to believe.

Then you get into reasons why "the Fed survey is invalid because..."
I can agree with some of the reasons, but at the end of it all it becomes a matter of weight.
If guns were actually deterring or prevention a significant number of injuries,
the data should be leaning in that direction. But it's not.
So everyone gets into anecdotes to make their point... thinking the more dramatic, the better.

The federal school zone gun ban leading to the elimination of high school rifle teams would be one example. Was it Spex who posted about his kid sneaking around town with a airsoft rifle leading to a policeman at the door? Spex is probably the most anti-gun American poster here yet he allowed his child to engage in a very dangerous activity with what appeared to be a firearm. Irresponsible behavior with firearms goes across the political spectrum, but the left uses shaming to push ownership underground making ownership less safe. The "community" of gun owners becomes a hardened faction unattractive to many of us. Of course when I look at the right wing douches with their automatics on the cool weapons thread, I am not reassured about the rights' commitment to gun safety either.

Just for clarification:
17 year old walking unsneakily ;) with a non-lethal "toy" without my advice or consent.

I have no issue with rifles/shotguns being used for protection or sport/hunting, unless the prey is human. I object to the ease which people can murder high numbers of innocents. That's all.

Would it be fair to say, not sneaking with a non-lethal toy which looks like the real thing?

I had not heard of such a ban, so can you give a link or two ?

There was a ban by some local school boards after the Columnbine shootings.
But in a brief Google search, I haven't yet found such a ban.
There was the Assault Rifle ban in the late 1990's, but that law expired and not re-newed.

OTOH, a Google search for school rifle teams turned up several links,
and here are two, Connecticut and California, and I'm sure there are more...
Middletown Press
Serving Middletown, CT
JIM BRANSFIELD
March 09, 2011

Xavier High School offers rifle team
------------

Wickenburg HS: (Calif)
Clubs and School Activities. (Calendar 2012)

Eddie Eagle says:

If you see a gun:
STOP!
Don’t Touch.
Leave the Area.
Tell an Adult.

Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990

If you read the wiki, it was found unconstitutional then altered slightly. I'd guess your rifle teams are off-campus activities.

sure, But I wouldn't to characterize it as a "very dangerous activity".

Yes xoB, I'm familiar with this NRA program, and would favor it being used more.
But presentations are pretty scarce events as far as they go
... and it are often one-time presentations for any particular group of kids.
Again, with all their $, does the NRA really need to charge for the materials.

Radio and TV PSA's would reach many more kids, their parents, and the people who have guns in their house.

Repetition is one key to learning, and it's not just kids who need to learn gun safety.

Yet someone called the police. Perception is reality. People are afraid of guns.

Oh gosh yes, I agree re a horrible, horrible end.
Which is why I didn't choose it. I know about the nastiness of dying of a paracetemol overdose because Mum used to work for the Ambulance Service. She made us aware of all sorts if unusual things (across to the hospital, up to the morgue for example).

Less physically messy though. So if no-one really does love you, you die quietly rather than your landlord retching on his knees faced with a scrubbing brush full of brains.

Emotionally, suicide's a messy business generally.