quote:

ORIGINAL: smileforme50

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

This is a red herring, and you know it. Of course it's a concern. That's why safety regulations exist for it.

But then there's not a national association fighting it, one that isn't really concerned with the safety of children.

If we're going to play that game. Must we?

The safety regulations are BS and everyone knows it. Kids climb fences. I've climbed over fences. I'm sure you've climbed over fences. By your own argument, if a child dies in a pool that's got a fence around it, the safety design is flawed.

I think the point of that argument is that pools and other things that may injure or kill children (and adults for that matter) aren't designed and produced with their primary or sole purpose being to kill people. That is exactly what guns are made for. That's the problem gun control people have with guns. At least other things in this world that can kill another person have a different primary purpose to them, and if they are used right, won't kill anyone. You can't say that about guns. With guns, if you kill the person you're shooting at, then you HAVE used it the way it was intended.

When mistakes are made with guns, the issue isn't that someone got killed....because that's exactly what the gun is for. The issue is the the wrong person got killed. Either way you look at it....someone gets killed, regardless of whether you use the gun correctly or not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

So for anything that tragically kills children, if something else kills more of them, then it doesn't matter?

Or do you suppose sane, responsible citizens could favor addressing both?

FFS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted
He didn't say that the woman was there all alone. He asked, "So you would use that same standard for a woman that was in the store alone, with no children?"

If she is all alone, then explain how the gun got out of her purse and shot her to death? Scientifically of course....

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I note there are three side safeties on that gun model. I expect at least one of those could be engaged even with a preset pulled trigger.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

The primary purpose of a firearm is to kill. It has many secondary uses. Like self defense, target shooting, hunting, collecting, modding, etc. There are only two types of people that can not admit a firearm's primary purpose: the stupid and the insane.

Compare that to say, a car....

The primary purpose of a car is three fold:

1 ) To move one or more people from location A to location B.
2 ) To move objects from location A to location B.
3 ) To move people and/or objects from location A to location B.

It too has many secondary uses: collecting, vacationing, racing, modding. And yes, it has been used to kill people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Well maybe we should have traffic regulations, inspect vehicles, license drivers, and require safety features.

Oh, wait, we do. And we even have long data showing the effectiveness of those safety features in reducing deaths.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Well maybe we should have traffic regulations, inspect vehicles, license drivers, and require safety features.

Oh, wait, we do. And we even have long data showing the effectiveness of those safety features in reducing deaths.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Exactly.

One of my friends works in NYC a lot, and carries a firearm in his truck--ready, but secured. He doesn't saunter down the street thinking he's in Tombstone.

You have a friend who brings a loaded gun into NYC? Does he have a permit for that? Cause if not, he's breaking the law every time he rolls across the bridge.

I'm no law expert. But according to http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/newyorkcity.pdf, you need to meet two criteria:

It is illegal to carry any loaded firearm in any vehicle in NYC without a Permit/License endorsement issued by the City of New York. It is illegal to carry any loaded firearm in any motor vehicle without a valid New York Permit/License to Carry.

Ummmm, and?

I'm a bit unclear what your explanation had to do with what I asked, since part of what I asked was "Does he have a permit for that?"

I'm well aware that it's illegal to have a loaded gun in your car in NYC, if you don't have a carry permit. I'm also aware that it's just about impossible to get a carry permit in NYC. So, it sounds like your friend is breaking the law, but I suppose he could be one of the very few carry permit holders. Even if he is though...

since you keep pointing out how irresponsible this mother was in leaving her gun unattended and allowing a child to get it, why don't you think your friend is irresponsible for leaving a loaded gun in his car? You praised him, for not carrying it on his hip like he was sauntering through Tombstone, but see nothing wrong with it being left in his parked car? If his car is stolen, congrats, there's another weapon on the streets. If it's on his hip, you know like he's sauntering through Tombstone, then he knows where it is and can prevent it's being stolen.

Just out of curiosity, where is your friend coming from when he goes to NYC with his loaded weapon in his car? I'm wondering just how many laws this buddy you're praising is breaking? I'm betting it's several. But this is the guy you held up as an example of responsible gun-ownership, right?

Ah. The nit-pick brigade. OK, let's cover every inch of every example as a tangent to the main issue.

As you point out, the point was securing a gun rather than the "ready to shoot someone" attitude.

1) I have no idea what permits he holds.
2) Personally, I wouldn't carry a gun in the truck. It's why I don't. Even when I go to NYC (which I used to a lot).
3) Even if he wanders through the streets randomly shooting shit, it doesn't make the mother responsible. Or alive.

He also, incidentally, keeps loaded guns in the house. I think that's dangerous, that you're just as likely to get shot with your own gun. Several people here say no, you have to be ready to shoot. There are sad stories at both ends of that, and nothing including divine revelation is going to change that thinking. But he doesn't have children in the house, and the other occupant is also well acquainted with firearm use.

Did I cover anything? Or is anything else still stuck in your panties?

Is the mom smarter now?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

We update safety requirements continually.

What's the problem?

Beyond that you seem to think guns are exempt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

So here's the thing. I don't say stupid shit like that.

You do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

We update safety requirements continually.

What's the problem?

Beyond that you seem to think guns are exempt.

So here's the thing. I don't say stupid shit like that.

You do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

We update safety requirements continually.

What's the problem?

Beyond that you seem to think guns are exempt.

So here's the thing. I don't say stupid shit like that.

You do.

No, you make up stuff for me to say, so you can plug in your stock speeches.

See reply to Third.

Have fun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I note there are three side safeties on that gun model. I expect at least one of those could be engaged even with a preset pulled trigger.

Are you talking about the M&P that Kirata posted? If so, what three safeties? There's a thumb safety, a slide-lock, and the disassembly lever. I don't know how you call a slide-lock a safety, and I really can't see how you can call a disassembly lever one. That's like saying that taking the lug-nuts off your tires will keep your car from being stolen, and then calling the lug-wrench an anti-theft device.