The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[Malthus]

Well, no, that is NOT why parents should not have guns in the house, that is why adults should not leave loaded revolvers on the fridge.

Well, it was wrapped in pajama pants. That's almost like a trigger lock, right? 

[Berkut]

Well, no, that is NOT why parents should not have guns in the house, that is why adults should not leave loaded revolvers on the fridge.

Well, it was wrapped in pajama pants. That's almost like a trigger lock, right? 

This is one of those things that annoys me about the gun control crowd (which normally I include myself in...).

A gun in the house is certainly dangerous. It results in lots of people getting killed.

But in nearly every case, that is a direct result of someone being a moron, and not securing said weapon in what any of us would consider a reasonable manner.

Now, you can certainly argue that we know that there is basically a very high probability that given widespread gun ownership, some people will be morons, and hence we will have some rate of innocent people getting killed as a result, therefore pointing out that these kinds of injuries/deaths are completely avoidable maybe isn't so important.

However, we don't apply that same calculus to other deadly things that kill and injure lots and lots of people - some of which are actually MUCH harder to properly secure. Why not?

If we are really concerned about things that homeowners optionally have that result in lots of injuries and deaths, the backyard pool is vastly more dangerous than a gun, statistically. And what is more, a pool is a LOT harder to properly secure such that the danger from it can be reduced to almost nothing.

I am confident that if I chose to keep a gun in my house, I could do so in a manner that would make it almost completely safe for my family. Certainly a lower danger level than any number of other items in the house - simply locking it up in a gun safe reduces it's potential for accidently injuring someone to a lower level than any number of other potential items in my home.

However, my pool? That is nearly impossible to make safer. It is dangerous, and there is very little I can do to make it less dangerous. Yet nobody freaks out about me having a pool in my backyard, we just know that there is a danger there, try to be mindful of it, but basically accept the risk.

[Kleves]

A Chicago man has been charged with child endangerment after his three-year-old son was shot and killed by his six-year-old brother while the two were playing "cops and robbers," police said on Sunday.

The excessive use of force by police has even found its way into children's games. 

[Malthus]

Well, no, that is NOT why parents should not have guns in the house, that is why adults should not leave loaded revolvers on the fridge.

Well, it was wrapped in pajama pants. That's almost like a trigger lock, right? 

This is one of those things that annoys me about the gun control crowd (which normally I include myself in...).

A gun in the house is certainly dangerous. It results in lots of people getting killed.

But in nearly every case, that is a direct result of someone being a moron, and not securing said weapon in what any of us would consider a reasonable manner.

Now, you can certainly argue that we know that there is basically a very high probability that given widespread gun ownership, some people will be morons, and hence we will have some rate of innocent people getting killed as a result, therefore pointing out that these kinds of injuries/deaths are completely avoidable maybe isn't so important.

However, we don't apply that same calculus to other deadly things that kill and injure lots and lots of people - some of which are actually MUCH harder to properly secure. Why not?

If we are really concerned about things that homeowners optionally have that result in lots of injuries and deaths, the backyard pool is vastly more dangerous than a gun, statistically. And what is more, a pool is a LOT harder to properly secure such that the danger from it can be reduced to almost nothing.

I am confident that if I chose to keep a gun in my house, I could do so in a manner that would make it almost completely safe for my family. Certainly a lower danger level than any number of other items in the house - simply locking it up in a gun safe reduces it's potential for accidently injuring someone to a lower level than any number of other potential items in my home.

However, my pool? That is nearly impossible to make safer. It is dangerous, and there is very little I can do to make it less dangerous. Yet nobody freaks out about me having a pool in my backyard, we just know that there is a danger there, try to be mindful of it, but basically accept the risk.

While I basically agree, I'd not push the analogy too far - after all, no-one can steal your pool and go on a drowning rampage with it. 

It is entirely true that responsible people can, and do, keep guns securely. The problem is that there are so very many irresponsible people, and the social and legal effort to force responsibility on the irresponsibe has yet to be made. Perhaps an analogy here is to car safety - things like seatbelt use and drunk driving rates have been driven up and down, respectively, but it took a huge amount of social and legal pressure to do it.

The main problem in the US, I suspect, is that the issue has become so politicized and polarized that any such effort is effectively impossible. There is little social resistance to seatbelt and drunk-driving enforcement by car owners fearful that this is just a first step to removng car driving rights altogether ...   

[Berkut]

While I basically agree, I'd not push the analogy too far - after all, no-one can steal your pool and go on a drowning rampage with it. 

True - but I actually don't think there is a very compelling argument to be made that we should restrict guns because of the egregiously high rate of well secured guns being stolen and used in crimes. Frankly, in the US, getting a gun by breaking into someone's house and stealing it is a lot more trouble than it is worth.

I am sure that as a result of burglary where they are looking for anything valuable, criminals do in fact steal guns, but I rather doubt that is specifically what they are going after.

It is entirely true that responsible people can, and do, keep guns securely. The problem is that there are so very many irresponsible people, and the social and legal effort to force responsibility on the irresponsibe has yet to be made. Perhaps an analogy here is to car safety - things like seatbelt use and drunk driving rates have been driven up and down, respectively, but it took a huge amount of social and legal pressure to do it.

Agreed - and we should in fact apply that pressure.

But part of the problem is that the gun control crowd has their nutjobs as well, and for them, any suggestion that a gun can possibly be owned in a responsible manner is anathema - it is all straight up "Owning a gun is more likely to kill you than ever save you!" when in fact that is a rather ridiculous statistic, since it is so trivially simple and without nuance as to be nearly useless.

The main problem in the US, I suspect, is that the issue has become so politicized and polarized that any such effort is effectively impossible. There is little social resistance to seatbelt and drunk-driving enforcement by car owners fearful that this is just a first step to removng car driving rights altogether ...   

Indeed - which is why we need the sane people, on both sides, to start talking about actual possible steps to reduce gun violence and accidents. And both sides need to start ignoring the nutjobs in their midst if there is ever ANY hope of making any progress at all.

[Malthus]

True - but I actually don't think there is a very compelling argument to be made that we should restrict guns because of the egregiously high rate of well secured guns being stolen and used in crimes. Frankly, in the US, getting a gun by breaking into someone's house and stealing it is a lot more trouble than it is worth.

I am sure that as a result of burglary where they are looking for anything valuable, criminals do in fact steal guns, but I rather doubt that is specifically what they are going after.

True - I suspect the bigger concern is mentally unstable family members stealing one's guns and going on a rampage (as happened in the Sandy Hook massacre), or kiddies stealing them and shooting someone (as happened in the above story), than burglars.

Agreed - and we should in fact apply that pressure.

But part of the problem is that the gun control crowd has their nutjobs as well, and for them, any suggestion that a gun can possibly be owned in a responsible manner is anathema - it is all straight up "Owning a gun is more likely to kill you than ever save you!" when in fact that is a rather ridiculous statistic, since it is so trivially simple and without nuance as to be nearly useless.

The additional problem is that the gun nuts aren't totally crazy to see responsible measures as a cat's-paw. I think a lot of gun opponents would like to see them used in exactly that manner. An analogy here is to anti-smoking measures, which have the clear intent of gradually eliminating smoking altogether.

Indeed - which is why we need the sane people, on both sides, to start talking about actual possible steps to reduce gun violence and accidents. And both sides need to start ignoring the nutjobs in their midst if there is ever ANY hope of making any progress at all.

Yup.

[Valmy]

Of course if you do lock your gun away and leave it unloaded and so forth it is pretty much useless for home defense. Anybody who uses it for home defense is going to leave it someplace, ready to use, where they can get to it quickly. Which is why I will never have a gun at home. Even if I decide I want to take up some kind of sport that involves guns they will not be stored at my house.

Also the problem with the gun control nutjobs is that the Supreme Court has already ruled against them. They need to think practically at this point what can actually be done.

[Berkut]

Of course if you do lock your gun away and leave it unloaded and so forth it is pretty much useless for home defense. Anybody who uses it for home defense is going to leave it someplace, ready to use, where they can get to it quickly. Which is why I will never have a gun at home. Even if I decide I want to take up some kind of sport that involves guns they will not be stored at my house.

I don't understand this claim.

It seems patently false. You don't have to have your gun locked in a vault. Just secured in a location that only you can get to, but children cannot. A simple gun safe/locked security box will do that, and allow the weapon to be accessible within a few moments.

Throw on a trigger lock for good measure, and there you go.

[DGuller]

But part of the problem is that the gun control crowd has their nutjobs as well, and for them, any suggestion that a gun can possibly be owned in a responsible manner is anathema - it is all straight up "Owning a gun is more likely to kill you than ever save you!" when in fact that is a rather ridiculous statistic, since it is so trivially simple and without nuance as to be nearly useless.

How is the former related to the latter?  And how is the latter misleading?

[Barrister]

Of course if you do lock your gun away and leave it unloaded and so forth it is pretty much useless for home defense. Anybody who uses it for home defense is going to leave it someplace, ready to use, where they can get to it quickly. Which is why I will never have a gun at home. Even if I decide I want to take up some kind of sport that involves guns they will not be stored at my house.

I don't understand this claim.

It seems patently false. You don't have to have your gun locked in a vault. Just secured in a location that only you can get to, but children cannot. A simple gun safe/locked security box will do that, and allow the weapon to be accessible within a few moments.

Throw on a trigger lock for good measure, and there you go.

Having to go to a gun locker, unlock the gun (either by fumbling with a combination, or trying to find the key), then again having to remove the trigger lock, will take many seconds which you probably don't have if you need it for self-defence.

[lustindarkness]

A safe or a simple combo lock gun box should be enough to secure a gun properly. Proper gun safety training for everyone in the home including the children also is a must. The gun can be loaded and chambered at all times and still be safe if in a holster and either on the person or locked.

[Barrister]

A safe or a simple combo lock gun box should be enough to secure a gun properly. Proper gun safety training for everyone in the home including the children also is a must. The gun can be loaded and chambered at all times and still be safe if in a holster and either on the person or locked.

I disagree.  A gun should never be stored while loaded.  All it takes is one time forgetting to lock up the gun and a child can get their hands on a lethal weapon.

You always want it that it would take multiple mistakes before leading to a tragedy.

[Berkut]

Of course if you do lock your gun away and leave it unloaded and so forth it is pretty much useless for home defense. Anybody who uses it for home defense is going to leave it someplace, ready to use, where they can get to it quickly. Which is why I will never have a gun at home. Even if I decide I want to take up some kind of sport that involves guns they will not be stored at my house.

I don't understand this claim.

It seems patently false. You don't have to have your gun locked in a vault. Just secured in a location that only you can get to, but children cannot. A simple gun safe/locked security box will do that, and allow the weapon to be accessible within a few moments.

Throw on a trigger lock for good measure, and there you go.

Having to go to a gun locker, unlock the gun (either by fumbling with a combination, or trying to find the key), then again having to remove the trigger lock, will take many seconds which you probably don't have if you need it for self-defence.

I don't agree at all. Yes, there could be a circumstance where the utility is wasted if you cannot get to it within a few moments, but I suspect the majority of plausible circumstances allows for a reasonable amount of time (a minute or so) to secure a weapon from a secure location. Say your typical home burglary scenario, where an intruder is trying to break in in some not incredibly obvious fashion.

[lustindarkness]

Well then, don't forget to lock it then.

[Berkut]

But part of the problem is that the gun control crowd has their nutjobs as well, and for them, any suggestion that a gun can possibly be owned in a responsible manner is anathema - it is all straight up "Owning a gun is more likely to kill you than ever save you!" when in fact that is a rather ridiculous statistic, since it is so trivially simple and without nuance as to be nearly useless.

How is the former related to the latter?  And how is the latter misleading?

It is misleading because it is a general statistic that is so broad that it is not useful to evaluate a reasonable persons risk in owning a weapon.

For example, the story listed means nothing to me and my choice - I would never, ever leave a loaded revolver on top of the fridge, hence the fact that this tragedy occurred means nothing at all to me when it comes to evaluating my own risk in having a weapon in the house.

Similarly, I am 100% confident that I will never shoot myself or someone in my family, hence the risk of me committing suicide or being a murder-suicide victim/perpetrator, is for me, zero.

If I had a gun, I would never leave it anywhere my children could reasonable get to it, and the vast majority of times some kid accidently shoots someone, it turns out that the owner is an idiot who didn't secure their weapon. Again, not applicable to me.

Which isn't to say that there is no risk, but it is to say that the overall statistics are not illuminating towards evaluating a particular individual level of risk.

It is like the oft cited statistic that 50% of marriages end in divorce. Does that mean YOUR marriage is 50-50? Of course not. There are so many obvious risk factors involved that it is silly to say that - the risk is radically higher or lower based on your demographic group.