Guns don't kill people ....

[BigV]

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?

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by BigV

... 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. ...

... How can those of us who want to avoid being shot improve that likelihood? ...

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.

Originally Posted by BigV

... I'd like to avoid devolving into a constitutional pissing match for the moment, ...

Done.