The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

[buttslinger]

I recently changed my Homeowner's Policy,.... A loaded shotgun by your bed, and an Attack Dog might do well to protect you from Intruders, but they also increase your annual Insurance Payment.

[broncofan]

I recently changed my Homeowner's Policy,.... A loaded shotgun by your bed, and an Attack Dog might do well to protect you from Intruders, but they also increase your annual Insurance Payment.

LOL. Interesting to hear. Insurance companies, whatever one may think of them, tend not to be stupid. You mean they don't think your gun and dog will stave off a potential arsonist? Clearly their actuaries have not spoken to Lapierre.

Termites? Use a glock
Flooding? a .45
Roving arsonists? a Desert Eagle.

[notdrunk]

Riiiight. Because responsible, law-abiding civilian gun owners never experience accidental discharges.

It appears you've missed the point again.

Please try again.

No, you can't. The safety may not have been functioning. But what the fuck is anyone doing bringing loaded AR-15's to a public school in the first place?!

If the safety isn't working, the fault is with the officer for not checking if he has a defective rifle. Sort of like an officer carrying a firearm on his hip? Most police vehicles have a shotgun or an ar in the trunk. The motorbike was the vehicle for the officer.

What about flamethrowers?

Legal in some states and illegal in other states. There is no federal law criminalizing the possession of a flamethrower.

[trish]

You yourself assumed the safety was working. You offered your guarantee

[martin48]

While the LA police were giving a demonstration at an elementary school a child pulls the trigger on AK-15 that was mounted on one of their motorcycles. Three children suffered shrapnel injuries. The weapon had several fail-safes that all seemed to have failed. Police are puzzled and have removed the mounted AK-15's from their other cycles until they figure out what went wrong. If only teachers had guns, this might have been prevented.

It's rather unfair if we don't issue guns to the kids as well. Teachers can be a threat to kids. So let everyone be armed (concealed of course, and no limit on the firepower) - let half the country want to hark back to some golden age of capturing the West, lynching, racial hatred (don't forget commies, and anyone else with different views), put God in there some where (well, my God and not yours!), a belief that we can screw the Earth and all its resources - let 'em fight it out. Please just let the rest of us get on with our lives and our civilization.

Just a thought

[martin48]

Or build these. It seems to be what you want. "Fast Approaching" - no way. Each generation will grow up in a society that believes guns and their use is normal.

[thombergeron]

Please try again.

OK. Please do try to make an effort at comprehension this time.

Firearms are dangerous. Whether the weapon is in the hands of a trained law-enforcement professional, or a toddler, or a highly experienced civilian enthusiast, or a deeply disturbed adolescent.

As we've seen from this regrettable story in LA, the countless other stories of accidental discharges, the steady drumbeat of active-shooter stories, the decimation of two generations of African-American men, and now this timely data showing that U.S. hospitals admit 7,500 children for gunshot wounds every year, being in close proximity to a firearm increases the likelihood that you will be injured or killed.

Again, and to the chagrin of the NRA's marketing campaign, it does not matter who is holding the firearm. Being near a firearm makes it more likely that you will be injured or killed by a firearm. It is simply an epidemiological fact. Arthur Kellerman been demonstrating this fact for 20 years now, for anyone wishing to have an evidence-based discussion.

Interesting that you completely blew by buttslingers point regarding his homeowners insurance. Insurance companies have no interest in spin, they just want to maximize profits. Actuarial tables are completely non-partisan. Insurers are simply looking at clear data showing showing that the presence of a firearm increases the likelihood that they will have to pay out a policy.

Because firearms are dangerous. Period.

[trish]

Here's a link to Dr. Kellermans 1993 study

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...99310073291506

and (in blue) a brief snippet therefrom...(boldface italics are mine)...

During the study period, 1860 homicides occurred in the three counties, 444 of them (23.9 percent) in the home of the victim. After excluding 24 cases for various reasons, we interviewed proxy respondents for 93 percent of the victims. Controls were identified for 99 percent of these, yielding 388 matched pairs. As compared with the controls, the victims more often lived alone or rented their residence. Also, case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home. After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4). Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.



Conclusions

The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

[Stavros]

Do any of you gun owners have a pair of these? For the gun, I mean...

[trish]

http://www.newser.com/story/176812/t...pals-yard.html