<p>Swimming pools are safe for children if water safety is practiced. I’m real big on children learning how to swim…as far as I’m concerned it is a must for children learning to swim. Children should never be near a pool unsupervised; pools need to be fenced to help prevent kids going in them and drowning.</p>
<p>If poetgrl is free later on today, maybe we could go tank shopping together? I’ll google the local gun shows on-line to see what’s open. I’d also like to check out some of those things you hold on your shoulder and use to shoot down airplanes and helicopters. I’m thinking it’s possible to really get a safe space cleared out all around my property.</p>
<p>
You’re certainly free to think what you want. I find it improbable that they would add the second amendment as such without realizing that it would empower citizens to oppose the government - especially since they had done essentially the same thing, against a country which had among the best armed forces of the time.</p>
<p>
Unless, when presented with an example, you refuse to acknowledge that this might be the case. I propose that this may very well have been the case. The American Revolution was a monumental event in Western history; why couldn’t they have done something different? Also, it’s heading into strawman territory to claim that empowering people to oppose the government is encouraging them to oppose the government. If they intended to create a just form of government, maybe they had nothing to fear? Also, why should they have been afraid? They didn’t seize control of the government and establish a monarchy.</p>
<p>
This was the enlightenment. It was a hopelessly romantic time. Again, this borders on strawman land, but the fact does remain that, had the colonies lost the war, everyone who signed the Declaration of Independence could have expected to die traitors’ deaths. Now, I don’t claim to have oracular insight into their true motivations - maybe it was money, or fame, or some illuminati conspiracy - but not a lot of what you’re claiming is backed up by facts. It’s based on assumptions that lead to conclusions which reinforce your point of view.</p>
<p>
The third amendment may not be as obsolete as you might imagine. It’s not too outlandish to think that this amendment may offer protection against a variety of intrusions by a number of agents of the state, both at the national level and at the state level (by virtue of the 14th amendment). It limits the power of the executive in times of peace and in times of war. In fact, in the event of an rebellion by the people, this provides an enormous amount of protection to the rebels.</p>
<p>
I think the real issue here is that people currently enjoy a certain right, and there are some folks who want to keep it that way. Taking away rights - even dumb rights - should be done with extreme care. Why take away the right to bear arms?</p>
<p>
Does anyone need freedom of expression? What do people need? Should people lose the right to things they don’t need?</p>
<p>“Now, I don’t claim to have oracular insight into their true motivations - maybe it was money, or fame, or some illuminati conspiracy - but not a lot of what you’re claiming is backed up by facts.”</p>
<p>The reality is that we have a TON OF FACTS - in writing, and a record of how they were debated in their time. This wasn;t the time of Pharoahs.</p>
<p>No need to take away the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in a well-regulated militia (that right disappears when the militia does); the right to bear arms is protected by common law, and by state constitutions, which is the way the framers intended.</p>
<p>(Note the importance of the word “keep” - one can “bear” arms without any individual right of gun ownership.)</p>
<p>mini -thank you for the thought provoking posts.</p>
<p>aegrosomnia, you’re so busy attacking the straw man arguments you have raised that you’re ignoring the points that I have actually made. I’ve noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment provides an individual right to own guns (exact parameters have not been set as to what guns, etc.) and that I agree with their reasoning. So I’m not trying to take away anyone’s rights. I’m just pointing out that I think that a suburban dad who buys a gun and takes it home and puts it in his nightstand based on the fantasy that he’s going to shoot some bad guys with it and hence his family is now safer than before he bought that gun is a fool - and yes, I want him to know that I think that. I want to puncture the bubble of his hero fantasy, and make him think about the reality of what he’s doing.</p>
<p>The romantics who wrap themselves up in fancy language about how they’re “defending rights” are no different from kids playing video games and crowing about their exploits in my opinion, except that they are exposing their families, friends and neighbors to actual risk of harm. </p>
<p>I respect people who have a rational need to own a gun - whether it’s because they’re a hunter, a target shooter, a rural resident with varmints, a convenience store operator, a cop, etc. Posers and wannabes who are caught up in an adolescent fantasy in which they’re the hero - not so much.</p>
<p>Yep, Kluge nailed it!</p>
<p>Kluge, fortunately I have had the opportunity to work with those dads that are living heroes. They lived long enough to tell me their stories about the intruder that kicked their way into their home and were met by buck-shot, or the 45, or the 9. If and when you hear those stories, you will be free to choose how you secure your home. I chose to have my home well secured and well armed for those who penetrate my passive security.</p>
<p>Ah, yes - “stories.” I’ve interrupted both a burglary and a robbery myself, without a gun - those are my stories. Does that prove that guns are always unnecessary? On the other hand, if you decide that guns are the answer, and hang out with a bunch of people who agree with that point of view, you’re going to hear lots of anecdotes that support that view. Some will be true. Some will be “transferred” - a person will tell you a story saying it happened to them, when actually they heard about it. Others will embellish, or tell you about a threat they perceived that wasn’t actually real - or describe being threatened in a conflict they themselves created. </p>
<p>I was introduced to the mindset of gun nuts when I became curious about the statistics being flogged by folks claiming that 2.5 million crimes were “prevented” by people with guns each year in America. Since the statistic was so obviously false it should have been evident to anyone with a lick of common sense who gave it even brief thought that it was bogus I wanted to understand how otherwise sensible people could come to believe it. It’s a pretty fascinating look into a cult-like phenomenon where facts which seem to support the belief system are exalted as being incredible significant, while evidence which contradicts the belief system is - literally - invisible to the perception of the belief holders.</p>
<p>So, frugaldoctor - are you saying that you are, say, an ER doctor, who sees gunshot victims on a regular basis, and are relating these stories based on that sort of first hand experience? If so, I’m curious if you have never heard a “story” from a member of a family where a kid “accidentally” shot himself, or a sibling or a friend, or a husband who threatened his wife with his “protection” gun, or the family of a teen who committed suicide with a gun? I’m not very impressed with anecdotally based reasoning in general, but I’m curious - where do your anecdotes come from? </p>
<p>This site: [If</a> You See These Home Invasion Statistics, Don’t Look. - Home Invasion News | Home Invasion News](<a href=“homeinvasionnews.com”>homeinvasionnews.com) seems to have some interesting information about the frequency of actual “home invasions.”</p>
<p>ER doctors call me for those patients who can’t be saved at the bedside and need surgery to save their lives. So, I guess they would all be anecdotal since I don’t conduct studies on patients who are bleeding to death and need to be saved. Some are saved and some can not. My last patient was an assailant who broke into someone’s home and was shot by a 45.</p>
<p>But our exchange brings back the point I made earlier. Telling a gun rights advocate that they don’t need a gun to be safe will be as successful as telling a gun control advocate that they need a gun for their safety. These attempts only deepen each person further towards their beliefs. </p>
<p>A police officer may be front line in dealing with gun violence, an ER physician second line, but if they are failing I am next. I am not sitting in front of the television or reading the newspaper to come to my conclusions, I have the patients on the operating table. My decision is that I will have my gun available if that assailant chooses my home.</p>
<p>
You see, I guess I’m just an idealist at heart. I actually believe that most people are neither “gun control advocates” not “gun rights advocates” (and I tip my hat your skill in defining your terms as you see fit - shades of “pro-life” vs. “pro-choice”, anyone?) </p>
<p>I think most people are simply pragmatists. “Is owning a gun a good thing or a bad thing for me, all things considered?” I know that’s my attitude; I’ve considered it in the past and decided it didn’t pencil out, simple as that. And that’s why I think the real positive thing that will come out of the Sandy Hook shooting is the removal of the gag on investigating the actual risks of home gun ownership. </p>
<p>I think that a realistic assessment of the risks of the alternatives facing people who are considering owning a gun for “security” as opposed to hunting, etc. would in most cases come down to a conclusion that having a gun in the home increases risk rather than lessens it. It’s been my observation that people who come to the opposite conclusion typically vastly overestimate the likelihood that they will encounter a situation where having a gun would be helpful, and that they would successfully access the weapon in time for it to help and their ability to correctly respond to such a situation, and vastly underestimate their own fallibility and the fallibility of their family members and others who may be in their house. </p>
<p>You seem to be convinced that the probability that (1) you will have people try to break into your home and that they will do so in such a manner that you will have the opportunity to fetch your gun and shoot them - a good outcome - is higher than the probability that (2) you or your spouse, child or other family member will do something unwise with the gun you’ve brought into your home, intentionally or otherwise, with bad results. Both scenarios are extremely improbable - on the general order of magnitude of .1% per year per household or so for the latter; a fraction of that for the former. (The number of suicides and accidental shootings with guns runs about 40,000 per year; actual home invasions probably number in the three to four figure range, although there are no reliable statistics on that.) Both will happen at some point to someone in America.</p>
<p>But there will be a lot more of the second than the first. That’s the bottom line. And my assessment of people who believe that those odds don’t apply to them is that they generally are not making a rational assessment of their risk, competence, and ability to screw up.</p>
<p>There are always posts about “The suburban dad who feels safer with his gun in his nightstand but isn’t…” I know studies back this up. What about the rural guy who grew up with guns, knows how to shoot them, respects them, and keeps them at his bedside? I want to see studies on that. I am serious. Is he safer? What if his county often has 1-2 deputies on night shift and he’s at one end of the county and they’re at the other? </p>
<p>I am in the rural farmhouse, “not going to live here with varmits and no gun” camp. I am also going with alh because I’ve always wanted to drive a tank. Maybe I can get one at the gun show :)</p>
<p>I have spent the afternoon, without luck, trying to help DIL get homeowner’s insurance so she can close on a new house. The problem? They have a Doberman puppy. Not once was she asked if they have a gun. Yes, I realize guns are legal. So are Doberman puppies. Makes me ponder…</p>
<p>The other thing I wonder about is that police are usually in favor of gun rights. One might think they would be the people most wanting guns out of the hands of citizens.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have no idea what the studies say. My grandfather and my father were that guy. They never kept a gun at the bedside. They kept them locked up, unloaded. Ammunition was locked up in a different place. They kept a baseball bat under the bed. The only people in my family who kept loaded guns at bedside were not entirely rational. There is a family history of paranoia that increases with age. I was taught as a child a loaded gun at bedside doesn’t make any sense and is dangerous. I was taught early on to protect myself from what was seen as recklessness on the part of those family members. I was cautioned to be very very careful if I had to get up at night and never go to their room.</p>
<p>I don’t really need to have a gun for varmints. It’s useful. I don’t want to get too close to a big animal (if it’s rabid) with a shovel. Also, it’s just not as humane. I’m more than willing to turn in all my guns to a central armory if that means no one has AR-15s at home. If that happened, there probably would be some sort of animal control out my way. The problem for me with that scenario is my neighbors who really are eating what they kill. They are not hobby hunters. They count on that meat. I guess they could check their guns out for hunting season. I have to think about that idea.</p>
<p>I don’t think bow hunting is a really viable option for them.</p>
<p>Yes, just to be clear, I do not keep any loaded weapons in the house and I do not keep the ammo in the gun locker. It is in a separate place.</p>
<p>I can’t see any scenario in which the gun is coming into play inside the house in which I was not called first and given a half hour or so. I don’t keep the key to the gun locker with me, anyway.</p>
<p>However, I have had the unfortunate situation of a pack of coyotes who decided on my garage door area as a hang out. I didn’t have to kill them, but I did wound one. </p>
<p>My husband shoots animals and birds to eat. I do not. Shoot them, that is.</p>
<p>I’m not a big fan of urban gun ownership, but that doesn’t stop the “bad guys.” For years in Chicago, where I used to live, we had guns illegal. We had more gun murders than most places. I don’t know what the answer is, but I’m sure whatever it is, the bad guys won’t follow the law, anyway.</p>
<p>carry on.</p>
<p>Both of you have good points. I guess I don’t actually know any trophy hunters. People around here don’t take kindly to poachers or city slickers who come up and hunt in woods without permission and are just looking for a wall mount. Everyone I know eats the game, mostly deer. Sure, a nice buck has bragging rights, but does taste better anyway. </p>
<p>I am not that far from Chicago, which has some of the toughest gun laws, and a horrific gun violence rate. I’m completely ok with gun registration, background checks, etc. I’m just pretty convinced bad guys don’t really care what the laws are. I would like to find better ways to keep them out of the hands of mentally unstable people.</p>
<p>I have neighbors who, as far as I can tell, only eat meat they hunt or raise. They do their own processing. Taking away their guns would probably be a serious economic hardship. That bothers me. That changes my perception of gun control.</p>
<p>I don’t own a gun and never have. However, I can see why somebody would feel safer having a gun in their home, even though it would probably not make them any safer. </p>
<p>Where I live there has been a rash of burglaries lately, which does make you think about the probabilities of confronting an intruder in your home. I understand Kluge’s argument but there is some part of me which still thinks having a gun would be better than not having one. </p>
<p>If people want to have guns in their homes to protect themselves, I don’t see why it is necessary to forbid it.</p>
<p>There are so darn many deer, I wish we could just give one processed deer to each family that is impoverished and wants one. We could feed a lot of people around here that way, and maybe be able to grow a few tomatoes to give them as well.</p>
<p>yes yes yes yes yes yes yes</p>
<p>And an excellent argument for raising the limit.</p>