Yes, there are easy methods of reducing deaths - we have a program here called "Do the five" Quote: 1. Fence the pool 2. Shut the gate 3. Teach your kids to swim - it's great 4. Supervise - watch your mate and 5. Learn how to resuscitate yet you blanch at the prospect of doing the same thing with guns....better to lock them up and keep the kids in the dark,eh?
Read my previous post 2 simple methods firstly an indicator to show if the gun is loaded (and THAT is an idea whose time is long overdue and secondly child safety locks on the guns themselves - and there has to be a simple way of doing THAT But until America, one of the biggest producers of handguns, admits there is a problem with children accidentally being shot then these initiatives will never get off of the ground
What if? Come on now. You have to do better then what if you are talking about the restriction of the ownership of private property. If you grant authority to limit freedom on the presumption that it prevents death, you had better come to the table with a very strong argument. What you are talking about pushes us further toward the precipice of a very slippery slope. There has to be a very good reason why it is necessary in order for everyone to agree. If the only limiting factor is whether or not death can be prevented then there's a product list that is vast and varied that necessarily must also meet this criteria. How crippled would our society be if nothing we did could involve the risk of death?
A loaded gun indicator might be useful - as long as it never gave a false negative; however, it might make people complacent. The standard thing that is taught to every gun user is to ALWAYS check to ensure that the gun is cleared every time you pick it up. Even if you see someone clear the weapon, you clear it yourself. This is also one of those things that would be taught in school if such was allowed. As for child locks, I don't know of any child locks on any current items that are very effective against children. It would be impressive to come up with something like that for a firearm - especially something that is simple and intuitive enough that an adult wouldn't be distracted when the gun is actually needed. If something were developed, it wouldn't do anything to help the hundreds of millions of guns in private hands already, especially not the ones in the hands of criminals. As with anything else, it is easy to get the number of deaths from most causes down to a manageable level, but as that number of deaths approaches zero the cost and effort required to eliminate each death gets higher and higher. I find myself going back to the pool example because it is a great comparison. The current methods will reduce deaths. The next step to cut deaths would be mandatory swimming and self-rescue training to young children - which would be a huge taxpayer expense and would only cut a handful of the deaths. To reduce them still further would require some kind of automatic hardshell pool cover that would automatically cover the pool when adults aren't present or similar technology. This would cost billions and would only prevent a few more. Each step toward zero is far more expensive and intrusive than the step before. With firearms we've already reached a pretty solid equilibrium point between number of deaths and the cost/intrusion that people are willing to accept.
But I am not - that is my point. Nearly every single American on this thread has simply assumed so - thereby proving that there is a cultural barrier to discussions surrounding accidental child deaths when it involves firearms So where has anyone suggested we do that? Actually that is a good point - if guns were a faulty product would you accept this injury rate?
Again it is a matter of actually getting to the point of discussion in America without the fear mongering relating to removal of weapons. Until THAT happens there is no impetus on the firearm manufacturers themselves to come up with solutions that meet the criteria - and I am sure it can be done. Heck they are going there with user recognition and who knows? Next years models might only be able to be fired if you have an imbedded microchip - that would stop someone using your gun against you or even stealing your gun And it is interesting that you mention mandated swimming lessons - we are close to doing that. We have a LOT of free swimming lessons for kids under five (you did not click my link obviously) and nearly every primary school in my state has a swimming pool and the kids are bloody taught to swim first grade No wonder we keep beating you at the Olympics
Actually, they've been working on the identifying firearm thing for a while now, and it does seem like interesting and useful technology, at least in home defense weapons. As for the lessons, just wait, someone will propose making them mandatory, and once they get that and discover that there are still pool deaths, the hardshell cover thing will be next.
Yes you are. You just don't realize it. You outlined criteria and policies you would like to see put in place to help protect children. These criteria and policies are limitations to the ownership of private property. If? Do you have evidence that guns are faulty? Also, do you realize that manufacturers already equip models with the features you claimed were "long overdue?"
what if frogs had wings ? then they wouldn't bump their ass when they jumped. Living life thinking 'what if' is a (*)(*)(*)(*)=-poor way to live
Gee then I must have used invisible typing And this is my point - the discussion is closed as soon as it is opened because of assumptions and you know what they say about people who assume things don't you? Then the situation should be "How do we encourage people to buy guns with such restrictions and improve the safety of the children" I, other than suggesting modifications to new guns have not talked about any other restrictions But Americans cannot seem to get past that to make their own suggestions More statistics http://www.kidsandguns.org/study/fact_file.asp#deaths
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...urce=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=E68kT7qaBera0QGgnr3KCA http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/04/26/gun-improvements-handgun-safety-shear-pin/
Oh! My! Did you read the comments on that Blog? And again it is because Americans have this cultural blindness that means they will not see the importance of firearm safety
Your comments are quite visible. Do you not understand what you are typing? Are you not suggesting we "do the five" in regards to gun ownership? You also suggested loaded weapon indicators and child safety mechanisms. These things are things that you suggested. They are things that you typed. These things put limitations on the ownership of firearms. You might think they are minor limitations. You might think they are necessary limitations. I'm simply saying your argument has to justify these limitations in some way. I do not think that the simple argument that they prevent death is in itself a valid argument. There are many things we do that carry the risk of death and we find that risk acceptable. There are many things that can do to mitigate the risk of death that we do not do because because it is not equitable for us to do so. We do not set the speed limit to 5 miles an hour as an example. We do not require or even suggest that everyone wear crash helmets while walking on stairs to reduce the very high risk of fall based head trauma. We do not require or suggest that people drink only blended food to mitigate the risk of choking.
I don't think you understood why those comments were made. Most firearms owners that I know do not use mechanical safeties. It's not because they do not wish to be safe. It's because they provide a false sense of security. They feel that mechanical safeties and interlocks have the potential to fail, and that those who rely on them are less safe then someone who simply follows correct gun safety. You might want to reflect on that comment a moment. You are talking about someone else's culture after all.
This one is a classic: "IMO, there are no accidental shootings, just negligent ones. Also the world doesn’t need safer guns. A gun is a device to blow someone’s head off." (Fangbeer: could you please include the author's name and link when you do quotes? - it makes things confusing if you don't, thanks).
It makes things easier for other people following the thread (if they come in late). Could you please do quotes the same way that everyone else does? Thanks.
Ah! So it is not the seining of the communication but the receiving that is at fault I was talking about swimming! Please read what I write NOT what you think I might write
I was under the impression that this was a thread about firearms. Are you saying that your comments about swimming had nothing to do with this thread? How odd.
Yes and it is a culture that is intrusive on a lot of the rest of the world - whether we like it or not ergo we have a right of say as well Now where is your proof about what "most firearms owners" want or wish? My links earlier showed that up to 80% of Americans were actually concerned about gun safety
Can you please use properly referenced quotes, so that all forum members (including those coming to the thread late) can see exactly what is going on? This is a perfectly reasonable request, and I can see no reason why you would refuse. Thanks.