The Armed Citizen - February

[GtoRA2]

Curv
 I know accidents can happen and you do not have to be stupid to be involved. What I was saying is, that is the specific cases listed above, either better training or a smarter owner could have stopped the accident. Stupid people can make for some very stupid accidents.

There is no excuse but stupidity for letting a kid find your gun and shoot a sibling. Same for killing someone when you unload a gun, that was both amazingly stupid, and bad training. I was taught you never point a gun at anyone at any time unless you plan to kill them. That includes when you unloading your gun or when it is unloaded.

As for Leslie, his is a true accident, it would have been nice if his gun where safe to drop, most are, but most .25s are cheap **** and he got unlucky, and then lucky again when it did not hurt him or someone else badly.  That is far different then some tool unloading a rifle and killing someone. I can not even imagine how that could have happened.

You are far more likely to be killed on your scooter, by some driver not watching what he is doing then I am to be killed by a firearm in an accident. (well maybe, if you where in the US I would say for sure) Hell I am far more likely to be killed in an auto accident by some stupid kid in a Honda.

That said I do not think it is a bad idea to make sure the person buying a gun knows what the hell he is doing before he takes possession of it.

Hell, the many times I have taken non shooters shooting, I make them listen to me, and learn all the safety features of the guns they will be shooting, basic gun safety and then for the most part I do not shoot, because I am watching everyone of them like a hawk.

[Momus--]

Dune: "Face it, if a criminal wants a gun, he will get one. This is exactly what Australia and the UK have found out. The number of law-abiding gun owners do not impact this. And this is the problem with gun control laws. They do not accomplish what they set out to do.

On a point of information, the UK hand-gun ban was prompted by an incident involving a legally held weapon (Dunblane killings). You might rightly think the ban was a knee-jerk reaction but given that there have been no such incidents since the ban it's entirely possible to view the change in the law as having acheived it's aim.

[lazs2]

momus.... how many dunbane incidents per decade did you have before you were saved from yourself's?

lazs

[Momus--]

1 per decade over the '80s and '90s i.e. the Hungerford and Dunblane incidents? Maybe other less notable ones that I don't recall.

I expect you missed the part of my post where I suggested Dune would be right to view the '96 ban as a knee jerk reaction, even though so far it has served its purpose in eliminating incidents involving *legally* held weapons?

[lazs2]

not familiar with the hugerford incident/massacare in australia..  enlighten me.

lazs

[Momus--]

Originally posted by lazs2
not familiar with the hugerford incident/massacare in australia..  enlighten me.

lazs

Hungerford incident was in the UK in the mid '80s. A man called Michael Ryan went postal with an AK47 and a selection of pistols.

[lazs2]

soo.... it wasn't even in australia?   what you are saying is that there was only one incident  per.... per what? in australia and for that they took away peoples right to defend themselves?

knee jerk is hardly an adequate term for such behavior..   so... it is safe to say that both incidents were feak and might never have happened again regardless of any laws that were or could be put into effect?

lazs

[Momus--]

I can't speak for the Aussies being an englishman, but basically, yes, it was a political over-reaction.