logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Why Not To Own A Firearm, Turns out that they're killing machines
AuthorMusician
post Jul 17 2017, 02:58 PM
Post #1


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,346
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Two news reports that came back-to-back recently have revealed why you might not want to own a firearm.

The first is the father who shot his son dead at a supposedly safe indoor range when a hot shell allegedly bounced off the wall and fell into his shirt, then he used his hand holding the pistol to get the shell out, and that resulted with him shooting his son in the jugular vein. A few moments later his son, 14 years old, died.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/04/us/florida-f...-son/index.html

The second is a guy getting shot in the leg at a Denver gun show.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/denver-man-acc...anner-gun-show/

Firearm enthusiasts rationalize these incidents away by claiming they should never have happened if the firearms had been handled correctly, basically that guns don't kill, people do.

Same can be said for most traffic injuries and fatalities. Vehicles don't kill, drivers do.

So is that good enough for you? Or does it make sense to avoid firearms and places where they are fired in order to not be shot? Does your need to feel secure outweigh the risks involved in owning firearms?

Other examples come to mind, some exactly the same and others that are stranger, such as the camper not too far from here being killed by a stray bullet. The round came from an unsupervised range about a third of a mile away, which has also been the starting place for two fires this year.

I guess that's one reason they're called firearms, but I understand that exploding targets were involved. Hey, lets go into wildfire areas and start some -- ought to be fun!

Reminder: This is Casual Conversation, a place where points don't have to be made but where education can happen. My purpose is to encourage education on the risks of firearm ownership, especially those that are usually ignored. Like getting shot at a gun show in Denver or losing your child due to a freaking hot shell falling into your shirt -- one of the major reasons I sold my Glock 9mm. It did that all the time. There were several other reasons as well. I no longer own a firearm, have no plans to own them in the future, and I have my reasons.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 40)
AuthorMusician
post Apr 26 2018, 07:33 PM
Post #41


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,346
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Here's a reason for not owning a firearm that's tangential to safety concerns:

It means joining a club that doesn't understand how language works and has a religious-like fervor about anyone using synonyms and, apparently, ignore that firearm jargon often, if not always, has other uses.

Thus, a magazine can also be a building or a periodical. A clip can hold papers together or really anything, depending on design.

A muzzle can be on a dog, and in certain situations, on people.

A cartridge is what you put into a laser printer. A barrel can also be used to hold whiskey, beer, crackers, rain water, oil, and so on. Grips are what liberals needed to get before the Iraq adventure. Sites are where something happens, such as nuclear weapons tests. Scopes are what projects have.

So you get my drift -- do you really want to associate with people who constantly criticize others for their usage of language, even when that usage is accepted by lexicographers -- meaning what serious writers with important published works use?

If you do, have at it. I find these types to be highly annoying, geeky in a way.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: June 22nd, 2018 - 01:10 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.