Skip to main content

View Diary: Question for Gun Owners: Do you Have a Portable Defibrillator in Your House? (206 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Funny, neither do my firearms. nt (11+ / 0-)

    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

    by KVoimakas on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 11:11:58 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly! (4+ / 0-)

      Firearms aren't usually lethal (unless someone is pistol whipped over the head), unless someone loads the bullet in the chamber, has the safety off, AND puts their finger inside the trigger guard, and manages somehow not to keep the open end of the barrel pointed in a safe direction.

      Yet we have all these "accidental" shootings, that can only occur after a whole serious of non-random actions, that are usually taken for the express purpose of hurting or killing a live animal, or for putting holes in piece of paper.

      What do you make of the strange unlikely coincidences?

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 11:27:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not an accident. It's negligence. nt (11+ / 0-)

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 11:51:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is certainly negligence; of individiuals and (4+ / 0-)

          also of our Congress for refusing to pass regulations that will, over time, reduce the number of firearms in the hands of people that should not have them and also the number of people getting shot.

          Licensing, registration, full background checks, and limits on capacity of firearms manufactured/sold are the very least that needs to be passed.  None of which violate anyone's rights or the Second Amendment.

        •  How should we introduce preventative measures (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DefendOurConstitution, coquiero

          to mitigate the risk of negligent firearm storage and use?

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 12:28:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I am convinced that the best preventative (6+ / 0-)

            control measure for reducing the level of risk you are exposed to by owning a firearm is training. There is no substitute for knowing how to handle and store a firearm safely. I'm just not sure that a proficiency requirements are something that should be mandated in order to exercise a right, sets a dangerous precedent.

            You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

            by oldpunk on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 12:44:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Exercising the right to vote comes with a (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DefendOurConstitution, coquiero

              built-in series of proficiency tests.

              One has to be informed enough to know, and sufficiently organized to execute according to pretty exact standards.

              1. One must register by a deadline.
              2. One must vote only in one's own district.
              3. One must go to the correct polling place.
              4. One must go on the correct day, during the hours that the polling place is open.
              5. If someone is out of town the must request an absentee ballot, by whatever deadline the state chooses.
              6. When submitting an absentee ballot one muse follow the submission instructions, exactly.
              7. Whenever one moves to a new address, one must determine whether they are in the same district or in a new district, and submit a change of address.
              8. Every time redistricting happens, voters are expected to find out which district they now fall under and to go to the correct polling place in their current district.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 01:11:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Proficiency has to do with skill as opposed (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ER Doc, theatre goon, Crookshanks

                to what you listed which are actually prerequisites or things that are required as a prior condition to being able to vote. The only thing you would need to be proficient at to vote would be punching a hole, pulling a lever or touching a screen.

                You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

                by oldpunk on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 02:55:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I know what you mean (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  coquiero, a2nite

                  - but registering and showing up to vote do require proficiency in language and organization before you ever get to the point of exercising your right to vote.

                  The prerequisites to exercising the right to vote are intended to reduce the potential for some voters to create a menace (confusion, vote fraud) when they exercise their right to vote. We can't just vote in any precinct because restricting the exercise of the right geographically provides sufficient public benefit - e.g. polling places can prepare for an estimated number of voters.

                  Our current loose gun policy doesn't require anyone to be even minimally proficient in firearm mechanics, or laws and regulations that govern the use of lethal force, yet we allow them to walk around in society armed and ready to exercise their right to self defense.

                  I think that's backward, and that competency to exercise the right to self defense reasonably includes demonstration of ability to handle a firearm and use a firearm without creating a menace to others, and could require foundation training in firearm mechanics, safe storage and introductory training in federal and local laws surrounding the separation of alcohol and firearms and the use of lethal force.

                  I think I would support tax payer funded training for new gun owners and would support a test in lieu of training for experienced gun owners who can document their prior experience, e.g. military, LEO, HS rifle team. It could be class specific, hand guns, vs. long guns, single/double shot vs. magazine fed, etc.

                  We are setting people up to fail by letting them buy any gun without any training/experience at all.

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 03:12:53 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I might, might be able to get on board (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    theatre goon, Crookshanks

                    with such requisites for concealed or open carry, but not for simple ownership. I know that the state I live in requires you to pass a written and practical exam for concealed carry. I doubt it would be difficult but that's because I believe that the people who get concealed carry permits more than likely already have a certain level of skill when it comes to the mechanics and laws of firearms.

                    You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

                    by oldpunk on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 06:30:52 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'll concede (0+ / 0-)

                      that some forms of ownership carry much less risk than others.

                      E.g. someone who only owns a rifle for hunting could have a lower training requirement in the laws/regs re the use of lethal force, and it could be folded into the hunting license. IOW, if their rifle remains locked up at home it poses very little risk to the public, and they would receive/show proficiency in the law if and when they next apply for a hunting license. If they already had the training in the past 5 years they would be waived. Etc.

                      I used to assume that concealed carry permits meant something, and in some places they still do. But I read recently that many jurisdictions have no procedures for revoking a permit when someone becomes a prohibited person. I don't think relying on voluntary compliance is working very well in that regard.

                      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                      by LilithGardener on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 07:21:15 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Oh? (3+ / 0-)
                        But I read recently that many jurisdictions have no procedures for revoking a permit when someone becomes a prohibited person.
                        Where did you see this, and what locations were stated?  This is news to me.

                        Your hate-mail will be graded.

                        by PavePusher on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 08:06:21 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Don't recall exactly (0+ / 0-)

                          Probably hear on daily kos, and I don't recall anything more specific than that, so I can't be sure of it at all.

                          My last sentence is in reference to the number of women who get shot after a protective order is issued. Voluntary compliance is not working for that population of prohibited persons.

                          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                          by LilithGardener on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 08:16:50 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  I'll further agree that (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      a2nite

                      having a collection of antique guns is not likely to pose much risk to the public.

                      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                      by LilithGardener on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 07:30:18 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  We are NOT setting anyone up to fail when (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coquiero

                    They buy a firearm. They are making that choice.
                    I as one taxpayer already pay to subsidize stuff I don't like like the MIC. I'm not going to support my tax dollars be used to train adults in that use. If they want to learn & get paid to learn, they can join the armed forces or become a mercenary.

                    We don't want to pay for k-12 school or prisons or the government we deserve because too many of us hate each other so much.

                    We pay for all of this gun violence with increased usage of emergency services, police, trauma centers.

                    That has a resounding NO from me.

                    nosotros no somos estúpidos

                    by a2nite on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 04:34:49 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yes, we do pay a high price for our (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      coquiero

                      failure to reduce the harms of gun violence.

                      My comment wasn't clear. I'm coming from a harm reduction perspective similar to those places that provide needle exchange. And similar to the logic that originally prevailed when we as a civil society decided to intervene to reduce the HIV infection. Yes, providing free testing and means tested treatment was/is expensive, but it was/is a lot less expensive than simply leaving people living in high risk households to fend for themselves.

                      My potential willingness to subsidize it some from practical considerations. I don't think the 2A includes any right to create a menace, but if SCOTUS ruled that requiring competency and training in the law did violate the 2A, then I'd be willing to invest some money in harm reduction.

                      I'm sorry comment wasn't clear. The people I see us setting up for failure are those who get shot by a gun in the home of a negligent gun owner. And it's my opinion that some negligent gun owners wouldn't manage to complete the training, and then LEOs have a mechanism to remove guns from that home, where the gun owner lacks the attention span to own/store/use a gun without creating a menace.

                      We shouldn't have to wait for someone to get shot.

                      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                      by LilithGardener on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 07:59:38 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  I too am in favor of public education campaigns (3+ / 0-)

              that engage and motivate gun owners to think about where their guns are and whether they are secured every minute.

              E.g. Anyone who sleeps with a loaded gun next to the bed might not realize that they are exposing themselves and their family to injury/death by gunshot every time they leave that gun where it is, and take a shower, go downstairs for breakfast, are outside mowing the lawn, washing the car, etc.

              The number of unintentional shootings show us that there are many thousands of gun owners exposing their families every day, because they are in fact careless about their guns.

              IMO, sanctions for unintentional shootings should include loss of rights and training before rights can be restored. That places the burden on those with a demonstrated inability to secure their firearms, and doesn't place any new burden on experienced responsible gun owners.

              The other place I see room for increased responsibility - is to ask more of a seller. The RKBA does not include any right to sell or gift a gun to someone prohibited / incompetent to own one.

              If we become willing to ask more of the seller, I think that minimal firearm proficiency might cut down on straw purchases. The purchaser could be required to show they know how to load, unload and clear the weapon they want to buy. A simple firing accuracy test could show the seller whether the person stands correctly, holds the firearm correctly, and can at least hit the paper.

              That's the kind of training/preparation a potential buyer could receive from a family member or a friend, or take a class at a range, or take a short, on the spot training from the FFL or seller? Gun ranges and municipalities that what want to, could subsidize such training or offer it for free.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 01:23:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Base them on accepted safety rules (4+ / 0-)

            Politically, it may be shrewder to introduce them as incentives rather than laws (e.g. giving away trigger locks), or just require insurance and let the insurance companies dictate the preventive measures.

            Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

            by Dogs are fuzzy on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 02:46:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site