Some facts about guns in the US

[billvon]

Therefore WHY NOT start telling your children about safety, gun safety, the constitution early on in a fun and friendly manner that children can respond too?

I agree, but this isn't a gun safety book - it's a "how silly people are who don't carry guns" book.

but its ok to sell a book about (and essentially supporting and teaching) little girls who break into other people's homes and steal their stuff? (Goldilocks and the three bears)

Uh - Goldilocks (who is an old, ill tempered crone) learns the lesson NOT to steal from that book, after the bears discover her and chase her away. Later versions changed her to a little girl, who learns a similar lesson.

But in any case, again, the lesson of the original book is how silly people who object to guns are. It has nothing to do with gun safety. You could argue that one of its intents is to make children more comfortable with their parents who carry guns - but again, without the gun safety part that's a lesson that could do more harm than good.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I agree, but this isn't a gun safety book - it's a "how silly people are who don't carry guns" book.

Well, I haven't read the book so I don't know... Thank you for pointing this out. I appreciate it.
and letting them (kids and probably adults too) know that not everyone who carries a gun is a psychotic idiot "hell-bent on eliminating the population because they were bullied (or just like it)" is a good thing, IMHO

Uh - Goldilocks (who is an old, ill tempered crone) learns the lesson NOT to steal from that book, after the bears discover her and chase her away. Later versions changed her to a little girl, who learns a similar lesson.

True... bad example. I used the latter version and though she WAS chased away, it just seemed to me to condone the initial behavior and say "as long as you don't get caught, you will be fine".... I should have stuck with the Grimm's like you did. gruesome book in its original form... but then again, back in those days, I think children were exposed to reality a lot sooner, and expected to deal or acclimate quicker/faster than today's children. You could be a man at 14, and a married woman at the same age.

But in any case, again, the lesson of the original book is how silly people who object to guns are.

this I don't agree with. no point in denigrating a person that is already filled with fear... it makes them lash out and call any gun owning person a psychotic, or talk about the US as a wild west with shootouts on every corner... etc...

It has nothing to do with gun safety. You could argue that one of its intents is to make children more comfortable with their parents who carry guns - but again, without the gun safety part that's a lesson that could do more harm than good.

THIS I CAN TOTALLY AGREE WITH
the book may be a good idea, but WITHOUT the tempering of a good safety or education on firearms, it is just another way of poking fun at those who are fearful of guns!

Succinct and Cogent... thanks Billvon

 

[pjdude1219]

anyone who thinks people carry guns makes everyone safer needs to look up the weapon effect. the weapon effect can be summed up quite simply as merely carrying a weapon makes one more likely to preceive actions as threatening whether they or aren't. carrying a weapon also greatly increases the likelyhood of misidientifing an object as a weapon. and carrying a weapon makes more agressive, ie more likely to threaten others.

 

[Bells]

Well, our most traditional children's stories are pretty gruesome. Read the original Snow White, which contains a parable about how women are willing to do almost anything - including mutilate themselves - to get "the prince." (And that's not the most disturbing stuff in the book.) Or Hansel and Gretel, about a cannibal witch who eats children (and is eventually burned to death by children.) The details about her screaming in agony until her death were particularly creepy. Or, heck, any children's book by Dickens. The "all sugar and sweet" kid's stories are a fairly recent development.

Yes.. thank you for the reminder.. *Shakes fists*

There was this song in my birth country, a kid's song, about a princess who goes to the ball on a pier and she meets her prince charming and then the pier collapses and she dies. I used to cry each time I heard it. I mean seriously, what the hell kind of twisted kid's diddy is that where the lovely princess goes to her first ball and she dies in a horrific pier collapse.. My cousin's used to torment me with it when I was little, sing it at me until I cried. Great sport..

But yes, the happy kid's stories (the original Pinocchio is particularly awful) are a more recent thing and I don't think that's a bad thing. There's enough bad stuff in the world that delving into happy places (and sometimes gross places) in kid's books is a good thing. Especially just before you turn out the lights and they go to sleep....

Books that virtually lecture about how great it is to own guns and telling kids how silly and dangerous it is to now own guns because you only have seconds to defend yourself and your home and the police are minutes away.. How is this meant to be a great thing to teach kids? Hansel and Gretel is a story about an evil witch, which message can be not everything is as great as it seems and stranger danger.

And perhaps it is a cultural thing. In Australia, it isn't normal to see people walking around armed. In fact, it's illegal unless you are a part of law enforcement. So books like this just seem strange to us.

Although, I have to say, I am tempted to get the book about raising boys just for a good laugh, but I loath to support such authors. But yeah, perhaps it is a cultural thing.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

anyone who thinks people carry guns makes everyone safer needs to look up the weapon effect. the weapon effect can be summed up quite simply as merely carrying a weapon makes one more likely to preceive actions as threatening whether they or aren't.

this does not apply to everyone.

carrying a weapon also greatly increases the likelyhood of misidientifing an object as a weapon. and carrying a weapon makes more agressive, ie more likely to threaten others.

this is definitely not true of everyone. A person trained and experienced with a weapon will normally only use it as a last resort. And conceal carry classes teach that it is to be used as a last resort as well.

I think you are making assumptions out of fear.
Do you have some evidence to share supporting your conjecture?

 

[Dr_Toad]

I find that carrying makes me much more careful and calm.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I find that carrying makes me much more careful and calm.

ABSOLUTELY! true for me as well...
THANKS Dr_Toad.
succinct and cogent.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

There was this song in my birth country, a kid's song, about a princess who goes to the ball on a pier and she meets her prince charming and then the pier collapses and she dies. I used to cry each time I heard it. I mean seriously, what the hell kind of twisted kid's diddy is that where the lovely princess goes to her first ball and she dies in a horrific pier collapse.. My cousin's used to torment me with it when I was little, sing it at me until I cried. Great sport.

Do they sing "Rock-a-bye Baby in your country?"

Rock-a-bye baby, in the treetop.
When the wind blows, the cradle will rock.
When the bough breaks, the cradle will fall,
And down will come Baby, cradle and all.​

When I was a kid in the 1940s, this was one of the most popular nursery rhymes. Of course now I can understand the mood: World War II was raging and it was not yet clear which side would win.

I'm really glad that the new generation of parents (who were probably weaned on "Rock-a-bye Baby") are singing "Yellow Submarine" to their children! I'm sure the (surviving two) Beatles are pleased about it too. Children's music endures for centuries because everyone remembers the songs their parents sang, and sings them to their own children. People are still singing Irish and Welsh nursery rhymes from hundreds of years ago in languages they don't understand, pretending to have translated them into English but actually ending up with predominantly nonsense rhymes. In 500 years children will still be taught the songs of the Beatles. That's a lot of royalties for the Beatles' great-great-great-great..... grandchildren.

this does not apply to everyone. . . . A person trained and experienced with a weapon will normally only use it as a last resort. And conceal carry classes teach that it is to be used as a last resort as well. . . . Do you have some evidence to share supporting your conjecture?

Shall we start with George Zimmerman and Adam Lanza?

I find that carrying makes me much more careful and calm.

Unfortunately it doesn't do that for everybody. For example, George Zimmerman and Adam Lanza.

I have never encountered an argument to budge me from my assertion that in most cases, a gun simply makes a pathetic loser like George Zimmerman or Adam Lanza feel like a real man.

Of the remainder, most seem to be Armageddonists who want to be able to shoot at each other to see who gets what little food is left. Thanks, but I don't want to live in that world. Grind up my corpse and throw it in the stew pot.

 

[pjdude1219]

ABSOLUTELY! true for me as well...
THANKS Dr_Toad.
succinct and cogent.

No assuming how you feel is an accurate representation of your actual cognitive state. which isn't always the case. just because you feel calm doesn't mean you aren't being effected

 

[pjdude1219]

this does not apply to everyone.

untrue

this is definitely not true of everyone. A person trained and experienced with a weapon will normally only use it as a last resort. And conceal carry classes teach that it is to be used as a last resort as well.

again untrue. cops and soldiers show it to. people trained as much as possible to not be effected by it.

I think you are making assumptions out of fear.

and as usual your thoughts are based on your own prejudices and against proven research.

Do you have some evidence to share supporting your conjecture?

No you'll just through another childish hissy fit like you did earlier in the thread when your views were challenged. plus I'd rather convince you to give up your dangerous beliefs. so I'm not going to prove you wrong. plus if your as well informed as you claim to be you should at least be passing familiar with the relevant research already.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

so I'm not going to prove you wrong. plus if your as well informed as you claim to be you should at least be passing familiar with the relevant research already.

Isn't that exactly the point? Guns replace reasoning--or as it's usually put, "might makes right." He doesn't have to counter your arguments, or even understand them... or even listen to them. He can just shoot you.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Shall we start with George Zimmerman and Adam Lanza?

Unfortunately it doesn't do that for everybody. For example, George Zimmerman and Adam Lanza.

if someone wished to/tried to bash my head into the pavement, he would likely be met with the same lethal force. last resort. from what I have read about it ... it was a just shooting IMHO.

I have never encountered an argument to budge me from my assertion that in most cases, a gun simply makes a pathetic loser like George Zimmerman or Adam Lanza feel like a real man.

Of the remainder, most seem to be Armageddonists who want to be able to shoot at each other to see who gets what little food is left. Thanks, but I don't want to live in that world. Grind up my corpse and throw it in the stew pot.

This is your PERCEPTION of the world around you based upon your own internal fears and insecurities. I feel sad for you that you perceive the world in this manner. I feel sad for you that your think most people who carry are "pathetic losers".

I see the world differently. FAILURE to own/bring a firearm with you where I live can be fatal. There are FEW second chances in the wild.

MOST PEOPLE I KNOW carrying weapons are defined in THIS manner:
Hunters putting groceries on their table
people wanting nothing more than to PROTECT THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES
cops/soldiers etc TASKED with protecting others

VERY FEW (if any around here) fall into the "pathetic losers" category... fewer still into the "Armageddonists who want to be able to shoot at each other to see who gets what little food is left" [sic]

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

untrue

based upon just YOUR opinion... I know MANY people who carry and I am among them: please provide a link supporting your assertion, and make sure it includes trained professionals like myself

again untrue. cops and soldiers show it to. people trained as much as possible to not be effected by it.

I've had to draw my weapon hundreds of times... ALWAYS as a last resort... and NORMALLY I DO NOT HAVE TO DISCHARGE IT.
Therefore, unless you have some empirical evidence to the contrary, your comment is UNTRUE as weitten

and as usual your thoughts are based on your own prejudices and against proven research.

and your links/proof supports this assertion?

by all means, show me where I am wrong. link the study showing I am wrong. I CAN ACCEPT empirical data...

No you'll just through another childish hissy fit like you did earlier in the thread when your views were challenged. plus I'd rather convince you to give up your dangerous beliefs. so I'm not going to prove you wrong. plus if your as well informed as you claim to be you should at least be passing familiar with the relevant research already.

so basically you MADE A CLAIM but now you are saying YOU WILL NOT BACK UP YOUR ASSERTIONS WITH EVIDENCE because I will "through another childish hissy fit"[sic]????

I accept empirical data, but you seem to be trolling

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Quote Originally Posted by pjdude1219 View Post
so I'm not going to prove you wrong. plus if your as well informed as you claim to be you should at least be passing familiar with the relevant research already.

Isn't that exactly the point? Guns replace reasoning--or as it's usually put, "might makes right." He doesn't have to counter your arguments, or even understand them... or even listen to them. He can just shoot you.

and this is the internet... how exactly am I supposed to use "might" against you?

yall are a few flowers short of a peace movement...

looks to me like you are trolling now...

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

No assuming how you feel is an accurate representation of your actual cognitive state. which isn't always the case. just because you feel calm doesn't mean you aren't being effected

this is personal conjecture

when you carry, the RESPONSIBILITY of the weapon AS WELL AS THE RESPONSIBILITY of the consequences weigh heavily upon you at all times... it makes you seriously consider what is going on, avoiding confrontation as well as attempt to disarm the situation with any other means than force...

obviously you don't carry
you FEAR firearms
and you are inexperienced

sorry for you, then

 

[billvon]

if someone wished to/tried to bash my head into the pavement, he would likely be met with the same lethal force. last resort. from what I have read about it ... it was a just shooting IMHO.

Well, in the same way that any shooting is just a shooting, yes. Lots of people end up in jail over them.

I see the world differently. FAILURE to own/bring a firearm with you where I live can be fatal. There are FEW second chances in the wild.

Not on average. On average, carrying a gun increases your odds of dying a violent death. This may well not be true for you, especially if you do not allow owning a gun to influence your decisions. However it is true ON AVERAGE.

 

[iceaura]

Carrying a gun makes one more aware of the possibility that other people are packing also, and that awareness biases one's perceptions as any "priming" circumstance does - some people's more than others, of course, but it's a general truth. It's how a guy gets shot for pointing a salt shaker at a policeman, taking his wallet out of his pocket, ertc, when everybody else in the room sees that the thing is a salt shaker, a wallet, etc.

On average, carrying a gun increases your odds of dying a violent death

That mistakes correlation for causation.

 

[billvon]

That mistakes correlation for causation.

I didn't say anything about causation. On average, carrying a gun increases your odds of dying a violent death. This flies in the face of what some people believe, which is that carrying a gun makes you safer. (No mention of causation in there, either; those are just statements of odds.) Now, you can definitely decide something like "well, since I am more responsible than most gun owners, and will not commit suicide, then I am safer overall." At that point you are making some assumptions about causation, and they may well be valid.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Not on average. On average, carrying a gun increases your odds of dying a violent death. This may well not be true for you, especially if you do not allow owning a gun to influence your decisions. However it is true ON AVERAGE.

I will have to see numbers on this one. Any studies ?

I've seen this in print before, and I've heard people "say" it , but is there a study that can make the same statement by reviewing gun owners and crime stats?

Not trying to be a jerk ... I just want to know of there is anything that supports this comment, as I've heard it quite a lot, but I've never seen anything to date that supports it

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Well, in the same way that any shooting is just a shooting, yes. Lots of people end up in jail over them.

not "just a shooting"... a "just" shooting, as in justified