In Milwaukee, 9-1-1 is no longer good enough

[LIVEFRMNYC]

Originally Posted by glocke12

I'd suggest these instead:

I need several claymores to take care of this new raccoon problem.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by glocke12

Do whatever you are comfortable with...if you don't want a gun don't get one. Just don't tell those of us who are more comfortable using a gun what we can/cannot or should not do.

I don't recall telling you that you can't use a gun to defend your home.

As you say ... do whatever you are comfortable with.

Originally Posted by glocke12

Mine isn't locked away in a safe...

Neither were that New Mexico family's guns.

Good plan.

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Neither were that New Mexico family's guns.

Good plan.

I was waiting for someone to chime in with that kind of comment..

I live alone...If I lived with other people they would more than likely be locked up.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by glocke12

I was waiting for someone to chime in with that kind of comment.

Hard not to notice.

You don't think it's relevant?

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Hard not to notice.

You don't think it's relevant?

Its not relevant to the topic at hand...

[skunk]

Originally Posted by glocke12

I was waiting for someone to chime in with that kind of comment..

I live alone...If I lived with other people they would more than likely be locked up.

Do you lock them away whenever you leave the house?

[2020mike]

Maybe Milwaukee can melt down that statue of "The Fonz" to hire back some of its force.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by 2020mike

Maybe Milwaukee can melt down that statue of "The Fonz" to hire back some of its force.

Ayyyyyyy, what the hell are you talking about?

[2020mike]

Originally Posted by rdowns

Ayyyyyyy, what the hell are you talking about?

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by skunk

Do you lock them away whenever you leave the house?

I really don't want to discuss my home security in detail here, for a variety of reasons. All I am willing to say is that my weapons are secure within the boundaries of my home and I am the only one that has access to them.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by glocke12

I really don't want to discuss my home security in detail here, for a variety of reasons. All I am willing to say is that my weapons are secure within the boundaries of my home and I am the only one that has access to them.

As a responsible gun owner, shouldn't you at the very least have them properly locked away at all times except when in use? With 600,000+ firearms stolen every year in the States, isn't this a bare minimum precaution?

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by glocke12

Its not relevant to the topic at hand...

It's very much relevant to the topic at hand. Here's why ...

The Milwaukee sheriff implied that people within his jurisdiction should protect themselves from violent crime by acquiring firearms. Yet this study, by the American Journal of Epidemiology finds that simply having a gun in the home increases one's risk of dying from a firearm homicide, and dying from suicide.

Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Oxford Journals
American Journal of Epidemiology

Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study
Received for publication February 9, 2004; accepted for publication June 7, 2004

This is the mistake that so many American families like the tragic case in New Mexico make: they don't understand the risk that they are taking on by bringing firearms into the home, especially compared it the risks that firearms are intended to save them from.

I urge for more studies like the one from the American Journal of Epidemiology and look forward to whatever the findings discover. We need to clearly understand the risks and benefits that firearms bring into people's lives.

I have a feeling that people like you won't be happy with what they find.

[Spectrum Abuser]

Originally Posted by Ugg

This is straight from the republican/libertarian play book. Eliminate public services to the point where every American is responsible for his/her own education, health, transportation and safety. This is exactly what Paul pere et fils want our country to become.

Oh no! The privatization of 'public' services! That would require responsibility onto certain people who want the Government to supply them with everything they need!

[likemyorbs]

Originally Posted by Spectrum Abuser

Oh no! The privatization of 'public' services! That would require responsibility onto certain people who want the Government to supply them with everything they need!

You drunk brah? Privatization of public services would be an abomination. Why is it so hard for you to believe that some things simply need to be run by the government, for a variety of reasons. There are certain things that should remain non-profit. Like public schools and police and fire departments. And you speak of the government like its some godly entity, it's not. It's OUR government, elected by us and paid for with our tax dollars. Public services are an example of them working for us and our collective money being put to use so we can live in a civilized society. Lets all be thankful that people with your opinion are a fringe minority.

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

It's very much relevant to the topic at hand. Here's why ...

The Milwaukee sheriff implied that people within his jurisdiction should protect themselves from violent crime by acquiring firearms. Yet this study, by the American Journal of Epidemiology finds that simply having a gun in the home increases one's risk of dying from a firearm homicide, and dying from suicide.

Yes, and simply getting in my vehicle leaving my home everyday to go to work dramatically increases my chances of getting killed in an auto accident.

Likewise, eating the wrong diet dramatically increases my chances of dying from heart/vascular related diseases, and also the very act of eating increases my risk of contracting food poisoning and dying.

Life is full of risk.

Originally Posted by citizenzen

This is the mistake that so many American families like the tragic case in New Mexico make: they don't understand the risk that they are taking on by bringing firearms into the home, especially compared it the risks that firearms are intended to save them from.

I urge for more studies like the one from the American Journal of Epidemiology and look forward to whatever the findings discover. We need to clearly understand the risks and benefits that firearms bring into people's lives.

I have a feeling that people like you won't be happy with what they find.

I think you underestimate the intelligence of American families. I think the majority of people who buy guns do understand the risks and are responsible with them, although as with anything there is subset of the population who are idiots. Unfortunately you can't protect everyone from themselves.


As for the family in N.M., I don't know all the details of that case so will refrain from commenting much about that, except to say that if the kid who did the shooting had a history of being troubled the guns should have been secured so that he couldn't get to them or they should have not had the guns in the house if he was living there.

That said, I firmly believe that you are not going to be able to prevent someone who is dead set on killing themselves or others from doing so. Take the gun out of the equation, and it will just be substituted with something else.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by glocke12

That said, I firmly believe that you are not going to be able to prevent someone who is dead set on killing themselves or others from doing so. Take the gun out of the equation, and it will just be substituted with something else.

However, the chances of success will be correspondingly lower.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by skunk

However, the chances of success will be correspondingly lower.

I think this is a case of treating the symptom, and an insight into our reactive society.

We don't seek to prevent this problem in the first place, but only react by doing things such as banning firearms, or whatever.

I think the real solution starts with identifying why people are feeling the need to kill themselves, and then start work there. Not running around firefighting whenever issues pop up.

Start with a stable society, including safety nets (so that way somebody isn't killing themself because they lost their job and have to foreclose on their home).

Until such measures are taken, I don't think we're going to fix the problem, and instead we're going to start taking things away or limiting others liberties for the sake of a very small minority.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by eric/

Until such measures are taken, I don't think we're going to fix the problem, and instead we're going to start taking things away or limiting others liberties for the sake of a very small minority.

You'd rather limit everybody's liberty to live a more civilised and peaceful life for the sake of a minority of militaristic fantasists?

[eric/]

Originally Posted by skunk

You'd rather limit everybody's liberty to live a more civilised and peaceful life for the sake of a minority of militaristic fantasists?

...?

who is this minority of militaristic fantasists? And how does preventing suicided by treating the cause limit liberty?

[skunk]

Originally Posted by eric/

who is this minority of militaristic fantasists?

The same ones who buy military-style weapons and mutter darkly about taking on the US Army. Would-be insurgents.

And how does preventing suicided by treating the cause limit liberty?

Treating mental illness is definitely a plus, but failing to reduce the glut of firearms limits liberty. Life need not be a perpetual armed stand-off. MAD was never a healthy policy.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by skunk

The same ones who buy military-style weapons and mutter darkly about taking on the US Army. Would-be insurgents.

But those people aren't who we're talking about. Buying military style weapons doesn't necessarily make you a would be insurgent. Unless of course you have some sort of statistic or data or research to prove this.


.

Originally Posted by skunk

Treating mental illness is definitely a plus, but failing to reduce the glut of firearms limits liberty.

How does prohibiting firearms grant more liberty?

Originally Posted by skunk

Life need not be a perpetual armed stand-off. MAD was never a healthy policy.

And having a gun doesn't mean that's the case.