Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Then don't own one. (2+ / 0-)

    And let others make that same choice.

    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

    by FrankRose on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 12:29:59 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  What do you propose to do to prevent/reduce (4+ / 0-)

      the cost/harm of negligent gun owners' habits and decisions?

      Your comment - applied to drinking and driving, would be: "If you don't like the risk of drinking and driving, then don't drink and drive." It's a public health broblem. Unsecured firearms pose risks to more than just the gun owner. Everyone who puts their gun in the glove box or under the seat, exposes everyone around them to higher risk, everywhere they go.

      In your opinion, does that decision, of the gun owner, to bring a firearm into the home come with any responsibilities?

      "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 12:35:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, there are responsibilities. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PavePusher

        But simply having a firearm at home doesn't 'sacrifice her babies security' anymore than having electricity in her home sacrifices her babies security.

        Bare hands are used in twice the number of murders that all rifles combined are.
        Your fears are irrational.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 12:54:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Um, beg to differ (3+ / 0-)
          But simply having a firearm at home doesn't 'sacrifice her babies security' anymore than having electricity in her home sacrifices her babies security.
          Having electricity in the home increases everyone's risk of electrocution/electrical fire. That's why electrician who install/repair wiring are licensed.

          If we were rational about guns, we could require all sales to pass through a licensed seller, e.g. an FFL.

          "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 01:28:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hence the phrase 'anymore than' (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher, DavidMS

            You just made the hysterical statement that she was sacrificing her babies security simply by having a rifle in the house.

            Now you are saying that so long as she bought it from an FFL dealer (which she likely did) that she isn't?

            Fires, electrocution, gunshots.....
            You really don't have to be so frightened.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 01:49:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes Frank you are hysterical (3+ / 0-)

              Are you asserting that background checks on all gun transfers wouldn't reduce gun trafficking, and thereby make it at least a little harder for an angry ex-spouse to hunt down his ex-wife and children, or make it a little more difficult (technically) for armed bands of thugs to attack women at home alone with their babies?

              "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 02:30:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I must be seeing as how I don't recall saying (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PavePusher

                anything for or against background checks.

                First you claimed that she was sacrificing her babies security by simply having a rifle in the house.

                Then you seemed to think it was OK, just so long as she bought it from an FFL dealer.

                Now you claim that I asserted that I am against background checks.

                I have no idea what the hell you are talking about at this point.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 02:52:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm not convinced you knew what you (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  coquiero, TheFern, oldpotsmuggler

                  were talking about to begin with, so I probably can't help you. Perhaps you could spare your remaining neurons and just skip my comments in the future.

                  The A B C approach. I'm sorry, I thought A was obvious.

                  The problem: Marauding bands of violent criminals who will risk shooting each other and going to prison in order to invade her home when she is there alone with her babies.

                  Point A: It's unlikely that the marauding band of thugs purchased their firearms legally as traceability would be a real benefit to LEOs, so my assumption was those guns would have been purchased without a background check.

                  If so, then universal background checks will make tracking and prosecuting gun trafficking and stray buyers easier for LEOs.

                  "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 03:42:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Lilith, I think we may want to take the RKBA (4+ / 0-)

                    approach of "Do Not Respond" to this user.

                    It's not a bad idea to combat obvious, repeated and sustained trolls like Frank.

                    If we all agree to let him make his comments and no one responds, he'll have nothing left to do here.

                    It's going to be hard, especially for me who enjoys ribbing him from time to time, but it's something to consider.

                    I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                    by coquiero on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 03:46:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  "Marauding bands" Who said this? Do you have (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PavePusher

                    a link?
                    Quite frankly, what the hell are you babbling about?

                    You claimed that a woman was sacrificing the security of her children simply by having a rifle in the house, then you seemed to claim that having a rifle was OK so long as it was bought through an FFL dealer then we took a fast train to WTFtown when you claimed that I asserted I was against background checks, and now......there are marauding bands.
                    All in a diary that claims gun owners are putzes because defibrillator.

                    How deep is this rabbit hole?

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 05:15:34 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  This CDC info is a little dated (6+ / 0-)

        WISQARS

        2010, United States Unintentional Firearm Deaths 606

        2011 Unintentional Firearm Gunshot Nonfatal Injuries 14,675

        With close to 300,000,000 firearms in the hands of the citizenry I would say that owners of firearms aren't all that negligent.

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

        by oldpunk on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 12:58:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  When averaged over the whole population (3+ / 0-)

          the number does seem small. But that neglects how many people don't reside with firearms. (Students away at college, people in hospitals, nursing homes, rehabilitation facilities, the fraction of the population that lives abroad).

          The risk I'm concerned about is the risk that is concentrated in homes where minor children live.

          From the National Library of Medicine:

          https://www.nlm.nih.gov/...

          One-third of all families in America that have children also have guns, and more than 40 percent of them don't keep their guns locked up. Children younger than eight can't tell the difference between a real gun and a toy, and 3-year-olds are strong enough to pull the trigger on a real gun. Children and teens commit more than half of all unintentional shootings.

          I'm not sure which is scarier, that more than half are committed by children and teens? Or that almost half are committed by adults.

          IMO, all of them result from negligent adults who brought a gun into the home, or who failed to secure a gun, which was picked up/purchased by a child or teen.

          "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 01:34:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Without a doubt firearm ownership increases (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            andalusi, PavePusher, FrankRose, KVoimakas

            risk exposure. I just believe that it should be up to the individual to decide the level of risk they are comfortable with. Since there appear to be on average 600 "accidental" fatal firearm discharges each year and under 15,000 non-fatal "accidental" firearm discharges each year, which are incredibly small numbers in relation to the number of firearms and households that have firearms out there, I'm of the opinion that the vast majority of firearm owners manage the risk they are exposed to quite well.

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

            by oldpunk on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 03:07:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The statistical probability may seem persuasive (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero, TheFern, oldpotsmuggler

              but the burden is not shared evenly. The burden is concentrated among different households, and different members of the public unevenly.

              Prescription drugs and over the counter drugs all come with warning labels and detailed risks and side-effect profiles even though most people are capable of taking the recommended dose. We have safety caps to prevent a small number of child poisonings each year.

              There is a toy that was pulled off the market recently, made from magnetic balls. It was pulled because ingestion of more than one ball by a small number of pets and children required medical intervention surgical removal.

              Yet parents are permitted to give even their young children guns, as if they were toys. Children young enough to be unable to distinguish a toy gun from a real gun. I'm all for protecting the RKBA by reducing some of the "gun play" that is currently tolerlated.

              "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 03:23:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I still believe the answer lies in the level of (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PavePusher, FrankRose, KVoimakas

                risk an individual is comfortable exposing themselves and their family (if they have any living with them) to. I am quite comfortable having firearms, some of which are loaded, in my house so is my wife. I am also comfortable exposing my children to that risk. But my boys have never had a toy gun either, their sole exposure has been to the real thing, they know what they are, what they can do and that they aren't toys. They have been taught how to handle them safely, just like they were taught about medicines in the bathroom and chemicals under the sink.

                I got my first rifle at a very young age, 8 or 10 I think, it was a bolt action .22 and I assure you it was not given to me as a toy.

                I think we are over regulated to a certain degree when it comes to toys, do you know that Kinder eggs are illegal here in the U.S.? That's because they come with a small toy inside that needs to be assembled and it therefore presents a choking hazard, such rubbish. I managed to eat boxes of Craker Jacks in my youth and not once did I choke on the toy that I needed to assemble.

                As for prescriptions they have warning labels but no regulation requiring a certain level of proficiency to take the medication, that's up to the individual to sort out. Maybe warning labels for firearms? Something like "Don't be a dumb ass you could kill yourself or someone else if you treat this thing like a toy and don't know what the fuck you are doing with it."

                As for gun play that is tolerated, again I will point to the rather small number of unintentional fatal and non-fatal shootings. Seems to me that the percentage of these negligent discharges are very low. But then I am speaking to non-criminal use and ownership of firearms. I believe our problem lies with the criminal element of our society and not with people like myself and I think I am probably a fairly good representation of the average gun owner.

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

                by oldpunk on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 04:39:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Good examples of over-regulation (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  coquiero, oldpotsmuggler, a2nite
                  I think we are over regulated to a certain degree when it comes to toys, do you know that Kinder eggs are illegal here in the U.S.? That's because they come with a small toy inside that needs to be assembled and it therefore presents a choking hazard, such rubbish. I managed to eat boxes of Craker Jacks in my youth and not once did I choke on the toy that I needed to assemble.
                  I too was trained to handle and use a gun safely at a young age and grew up in a house with guns, that were never locked up.

                  The problem with the risk as framed by you, is that the majority of the public has no say in how much risk they are exposed to. Children have no say. And members of some households have no say.

                  We disagree at the frame - that the only shootings we should address are those committed by criminals. In my view the toll of gun violence is born by those who survive, so to me reducing the toll is a public health matter that should be partly public education and voluntary reduction of risk, and partly about regulation and services to reduce known harms in addition to reducing crime. So I don't separate suicides, unintentional shootings, or lead poisoning out as unimportant.

                  We have incredibly strict regs about lead dust when renovating old houses and buildings but no regs about lead exposure at gun ranges, and no public education campaigns about reducing exposure of one's family to lead dust. I'll guess that most gun owners don't change their clothing at the range or take any other protective measures to avoid exposing their children and others to lead dust. In my opinion exposure to harmful effects of gun owners' careless use is like exposure to second hand smoke was decades ago; it's considered no big deal.

                  "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 05:02:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Regarding risk. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PavePusher, FrankRose, KVoimakas

                    I would direct you to a diary I wrote a while ago RKBA: Life and risk and guns and violence.

                    A snippet,

                    Now just because you can’t get rid of all hazards or the subsequent risk you are exposed to, does that mean you do nothing? No it doesn't, because it is possible to control the hazards and reduce your exposure to risk thereby leaving any residual risk as tolerable. This is done by developing and implementing systems of both preventative and mitigation controls. Some examples of preventative controls are; driver education, hunter safety, traffic signals, procedures on how to use a tool or do a job, built in safety features like a dead mans switch, recommended dosages on pharmaceuticals, warning signs and labels, having a firewall on your computer and guards on rotating machine parts. All of these controls are intended to prevent incidents from occurring. Mitigation controls are things like knowing CPR, wearing a motorcycle helmet and road leathers, wearing a seatbelt, emergency response plans, life preservers, airbags, security systems, smoke alarms and dialing 911 for the police, ambulance or fire departments. None of these control measures prevent incidents from occurring rather they take effect after and incident has occurred and they help minimize the severity of the consequences of the incident and enable you to recover.
                    I really like the bit on ALARP or As Low As Reasonably Practicable. If you are interested in taking the time go have a read. As for me, I just don't believe that the risk that firearm ownership poses to society is very significant.

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

                    by oldpunk on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 05:31:42 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Thanks, I'll take a look (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      coquiero, oldpotsmuggler

                      That the risk is insignificant, or small and therefore not worth mitigating - we used to think that about second hand smoke. And decades ago we used to think that about seat belts, and before that we didn't appreciate the risk/danger of drinking and driving.

                      "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 05:46:29 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

        •  Personal protection guns are riskier (4+ / 0-)

          They're kept in a higher state of readiness and accessibility.

          Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

          by Dogs are fuzzy on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 02:37:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Parents don't get to endanger their children. (0+ / 0-)

      That's a decision Western civilization made a long time ago when it impose mandatory education and created Child Protective Services.  But gundamentalism has allowed parents to keep putting their children in lethal danger without repercussions when something happens.

      Nothing makes a Republican angrier than a smile on a poor child's face.

      by Troubadour on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 07:33:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site