Zero Tolerence

JFtheGR8 said:

I don't disagree with you Sam. I was merely saying that perceptions have changed and the whole "I was raised to treat a gun like a tool" argument no longer works if it even ever did in the first place. Why would we resist safely storing firearms when there are kids involved? Such behavior only helps the antis to point at us and say "I told you so" when a tragedy happens. I don't leave half full buckets of water around either. Common sense goes a long way to prevent unnecessary laws from being written.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

Click to expand...

The argument that a gun is a tool is still valid, and true. Ever hear the saying "My rifle is a tool I am the weapon" That's because some of us were trained to destroy materiel and people using the items at hand, could be a rifle or handgun might be a shovel. Due to this fact I have unbridled white hot hate for this "Zero tolerance" thing. Everyone is different and will respond in a different manner, my kids always had access to firearms and even some explosives (We used them for clearing stumps etc.) No problems but each child needed to be taught a bit differently. Now that being said what gives government the "Right" to demand how I treat items which I legally own (By right) in my own home. As a professional Peace Officer I would never enforce this edict on another, I may offer advice on the issue but ultimately it is up to the parents.

GambJoe said:

This is one of those ultimate conclusions. As we all know it's not as simple as that. I'm trying to say there's an alternative.




It works in the oil industry. What would you prefer?

Click to expand...

Does it really work in the oil industry? Sorry if you were meaning that sarcastically, it doesn't show in print. What I have seen from the "no tolerance policies" in the oilfield is just a culture of deception, misdirection and the propensity of corporations to use the policies to their advantage only when they see fit to remove a "pain in the neck". No policies are ever followed through without an agenda.

gambjoe said:

It works in the oil industry. What would you prefer?

Click to expand...

Your definition of what works might be a little questionable. What oil industry is it that you keep referring to??

http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/...---But-Not-in-the-Oil-Industry-190620491.html

Workplace Deaths Drop - But Not in the Oil Industry - 3/7/13

Oil and gas field services and drilling workers were killed on the job in Texas more than those in any other profession, according to a Houston Chronicle analysis of five years of fatal accidents investigated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Overall, workplace deaths have declined in Texas - but not in the oil patch where 197 perished on the job, an average of 39 per year, worker fatality statistics from 2007-2011 show. OSHA investigated at least 84 cases; dozens more died in job-related traffic accidents OSHA does not probe.

Click to expand...

http://ohsonline.com/articles/2013/04/26/cpwr-report-on-extraction-fatalities.aspx

Oil & Gas Extraction's Fatality Rate 7 Times Higher Than U.S. Average 4/26/13

CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report has published an analysis of fatalities in the U.S. oil and gas extraction industry from 2003 to 2010. On-shore and offshore oil and gas operations had a collective fatality rate of 27.1 per 100,000 workers, seven times higher than for all U.S. workers (3.8 deaths per 100,000 workers).

Click to expand...

Edit - Looks like shinyroks above was thinking the same thing I was!

All I can relay on the matter is my personal experience and observations. While the way I was raised, and my nephews are being raised might be "rare" overall, its commonplace in areas such as this. Most of my rural-living friends had similiar access. The only gun fatality, or even injury (well, injury worse than maybe "slide bite" or something of that nature) I can conjure up in my mind was one case of suicide, and I don't believe a locked gun case would have made a difference there (was a good friend, and when determined to do something, he got it done, good or bad). Downtown Chicago, IL and Wood, South Dakota are two VERY different places, and what makes total sense in one place doesn't necessarily mean its a universally great idea.

Davek1977 said:

All I can relay on the matter is my personal experience and observations. While the way I was raised, and my nephews are being raised might be "rare" overall, its commonplace in areas such as this. Most of my rural-living friends had similiar access. The only gun fatality, or even injury (well, injury worse than maybe "slide bite" or something of that nature) I can conjure up in my mind was one case of suicide, and I don't believe a locked gun case would have made a difference there (was a good friend, and when determined to do something, he got it done, good or bad). Downtown Chicago, IL and Wood, South Dakota are two VERY different places, and what makes total sense in one place doesn't necessarily mean its a universally great idea.

Click to expand...

I do think this points to blanket "no tolerance" as a bad idea. The actual problem, IMHO, has everything to do with non-supervision and a lack of exposure combined with the choice to leave guns accessible in the home. There is no concrete answer except to know your kids (this means spend time with them) and know the boundaries you can trust them to with reasonable safety precautions on your end. No blanket policy will ever reach the same level of effectiveness as common sense.

I cant disagree with a word of that, Shinyrocks.

A rural upbringing and being taught that a firearm is a tool can produce a responsible adolescent that can be trusted around firearms. It is the exception and not the rule. I'm sure it's also true that the ratio of accidental gun deaths to children to homes with firearms is very low. Illinois is a very good example of what can happen to people with conservative rural values. The population centers such as Chicago, New York City or Denver where liberals abound will use tragedies to pass laws to restrict your rights. You are not immune based on your zip code so lose that assumption. I will not give the antis any statistic to back up any law they wish to pass to further restrict my rights so I will keep my firearms away from young (maturity should be determined case by case) children. I suggest the rest of the gun owners here do the same. I am not for any laws that further restrict gun ownership but you may just get such if the antis push this topic in the media. They will try to attack from all angles. We're not the only ones that use incrementalism to get what we want. As a matter of fact I think we picked that strategy up from them.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

I found statistics that there are 10 lives saved for every life lost through accidental death, suicide, or homicide with a gun.

For every accidental death, suicide, or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved through defensive use.

Click to expand...

http://handgundefense.com/facts.htm

At 10 lives saved for every one of your hundreds of children killed, that means that we are saving THOUSANDS of lives by people having ready access to their guns.

Now if the OP has some statistics showing deaths versus length of time to access a gun, those might be relevant. Just because he hasn't seen any or knows of anyone that has been affected is pretty lame.

By the way, gambjoe, did you see the statistics on deaths and fatalities in the oil industry in post #77? Might want to reconsider your claim on the effectiveness of that "zero tolerance" policy. It's kind of like claiming that Washington, DC is the safest city in the US because of their gun policies. Not much challenge to blow either one of those claims completely out of the water.

I found statistics that there are 10 lives saved for every life lost through accidental death, suicide, or homicide with a gun.

Click to expand...

Sure, "our side" has statistics like that compiled from various types of sources.

The debate here isn't over either guns saving lives or kids being protected from their own mistakes and poor judgment. Adequate and sound gun securing protocols don't have to preclude carrying a self-defense weapon or keeping one (secured) somewhere near to hand when at home.

There IS a small question of what constitutes "secured" vs. just how immediately ready must a stored defensive arm be in order to mount a timely defense.

But that's nowhere near the same as presenting the situation as a binary choice between defense and child safety. That's a false dichotomy.

If you want to go with statistics, you'd have to find how many people died while trying to get the cable lock off their gun, or died while spinning the safe dial, or something of that sort. Not just how many people have used guns for defense.

45_auto said:

I found statistics that there are 10 lives saved for every life lost through accidental death, suicide, or homicide with a gun.



http://handgundefense.com/facts.htm

At 10 lives saved for every one of your hundreds of children killed, that means that we are saving THOUSANDS of lives by people having ready access to their guns.

Now if the OP has some statistics showing deaths versus length of time to access a gun, those might be relevant. Just because he hasn't seen any or knows of anyone that has been affected is pretty lame.

By the way, gambjoe, did you see the statistics on deaths and fatalities in the oil industry in post #77? Might want to reconsider your claim on the effectiveness of that "zero tolerance" policy. It's kind of like claiming that Washington, DC is the safest city in the US because of their gun policies. Not much challenge to blow either one of those claims completely out of the water.

Click to expand...

I sincerely doubt any law enforcement agency has the time to compile the time of access/death rate facts during the investigation, much less statisticians during their investigations. Even if the statisticians did take the time to look up those facts, they would find it was very hard for the corpse to explain to the investigating detective how long he/she was in possession of the firearm... There is a point at which reasonable speculation has to come into play, and good reason why there are no stats on guns' accessibility being a factor in attempted homicide survival. Food for thought....

GambJoe said:

I tend to disregard stats by winged groups they tend to be made up.

Did I miss anything. Where were the stats of people being murdered while trying to unlock a gun in the home?

Click to expand...

Hard to say. Last thing on the investigation list, so only obvious examples would even be recorded.

I have 2 methods of keeping guns out of reach of my 2 y/o son.

1. Every room that has firearms or airguns are locked up at all times, including my bedroom where I store defensive firearms.
2. Don't keep any weapon chamber loaded, my pistol is also in a holster making it more difficult to access.

Another thing I do is scolding him when he comes near a firearm and he stays away from them, the only times he is in our room is when we are there, otherwise the room is always locked.

GambJoe said:

I tend to disregard stats by winged groups they tend to be made up.

Click to expand...

Where did you get your stats from? Probably from a studied commisioned by a winged group....I bet they are made up

The art of statistics probably should not be applied in any way to this discussion. Compiling data is only one (small) part of making proper use of statistical information and we aren't even agreeing on the broadest aspects should be considered of the statistics any of us are referencing here.

Even looking at the current downward trend in gun accidents has so many contributing factors that it is difficult to draw useful conclusions from what even governmental studies say. Let alone the heavily sculpted "statistics" cited by any involved interest group, or anecdote gathering such as the NRA does with the "Armed Citizen" column.

Anyone that would argue otherwise just feeds into the antis' belief that gun owners are mouth breathing, knuckle dragging nut jobs. There's no need for laws to replace common sense though.

Click to expand...

I grew up on a working farm. I was handling heavy equipment before the average kid was learning to write in cursive. I was driving (on the farm) when I had to stand in the floor board to see over the dash. I handled equipment and tools far more "dangerous" than a gun before most people learned to do fractions in school.

Guns were just another tool used to kill pests, varmints, or put a little extra food on the table. We were raised to be responsible and as a result we were. Not every person is responsible, but the weak willed, chicken crap, fools who insist on making guns, tools, and even personal responsibility into some mythical, impossible feat are really a far greater problem than anything else in our society.

TCB in TN said:

Quote:

I grew up on a working farm. I was handling heavy equipment before the average kid was learning to write in cursive. I was driving (on the farm) when I had to stand in the floor board to see over the dash. I handled equipment and tools far more "dangerous" than a gun before most people learned to do fractions in school.

Guns were just another tool used to kill pests, varmints, or put a little extra food on the table. We were raised to be responsible and as a result we were. Not every person is responsible, but the weak willed, chicken crap, fools who insist on making guns, tools, and even personal responsibility into some mythical, impossible feat are really a far greater problem than anything else in our society.

Click to expand...

You probably should have read to the end of the thread before posting. You would have seen what you are implying has already been discussed. I'm all for Darwinism and thinning the heard by natural selection. Too bad liberals aren't. People arguing with me over this are totally missing the point. I could give a rat turd less if you don't secure your guns as long as some bunch of antis somewhere, sometime don't use a statistic and media coverage about making laws for "the poor children" because you know they will. If anyone is compiling a statistic on this it will be a left wing anti-gun group. There are thousands of new gun owners right now thanks to Obama and not many of them have the kind of experience as most of us do. I merely don't want to see us put in a losing position by something so simple.



Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

As for being able to access your gun when you need it: Keep it with you when you are awake and keep it near you when you sleep. Nobody implied keeping your defensive weapon under lock and key 24/7 just keeping it away from children when it's not physically in your possession. If it's where a child can get to it without you noticing then it's probably not where you can get to it quickly anyway. Not a difficult concept but we can agree to disagree.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

Not everyone grows up in ideal circumstances. Or has parents that know how to raise children.

Click to expand...

And another point to consider -- not everyone would consider those ideal circumstances. Many generations of humans have put their children to work at young ages, and often in quite dangerous circumstances. Kids learned how to perform a task as safely as possible, or they died. And sometimes they learned and died anyway. Farming in the latter half of the 20th century might not have been as dangerous as coal mining or factory work in the 19th century, but plenty of kids DIDN'T make it through safely. (Hell, on one site a couple years back, I stood in a spot where one little girl had been drawn into the ensilage auger filling a silo.)

We, as a species, trend towards moving our offspring out of danger as social development and circumstances allow, to give them a better shot at survival and higher callings in life. Yes, some kids need to drive tractors and some need to shoot predators to protect their family's stock. Neither represents the goal we all aspire to as safety standards.

Again, from previous thread:

I'm not sure why we'd be so very resistant. Shoot, when most of us grew up no parents used car safety seats. These days many fewer kids die in car accidents. Same with safety precautions on many other items. From pill bottle tops to safety rails around stairways, and on and on. Nothing's perfect, of course, and a very determined young person, as they get older, may indeed defeat even a heightened level of security. But does that mean we should not make the effort for the benefit of our families?

It is a very cavalier way of thinking, indeed, that says a little money spent and a little effort exerted to very significantly reduce the chances that our kids will DIE this way just aren't worth it.

Click to expand...

Teach them from a young age that they make a loud bang, are scary, and dangerous, and to never touch them without permission, and they'll lose all interest. Generally the noise is enough to do that. Or let them get kicked by a good-sized rifle to seal the deal. When they're old enough you can teach them there's guns that don't kill on both ends.

Click to expand...

oooooor....you could just understand that kids are kids and it only takes one lapse in judgement when you aren't around to end their life accidentally.

I'm all for kids learning about firearms at an early age. My son got his first bb gun at 4 and was shooting cans at 100 yds with my savage 93 in .22 wmr at 5 (on a bench). He is 6 now (turning 7 in october) and loves to shoot anything I'll let him shoot. I want him to respect guns...not be afraid of them. I don't let him shoot anything with too much recoil because I don't want him to develop a fear of recoil and then have to retrain away bad habits later.

I trust my son and would like to believe that he would never "break the rules"...but it only takes one time and well...kids are kids. Hell, even adults do stupid things with guns...even ones that are well trained. How many NDs have you see from police officers?

Keep one of those bio safe's on your night stand and you have a gun that is locked that you can get to nearly immediately if something goes bump in the night. I'm sure there are other options as well.

:banghead:

I tend to disregard stats by winged groups they tend to be made up.

Click to expand...

So, your "stats" are "right" even though you haven't documented your claim in any way but anyone else who disagrees is "wrong" because they got their "stats" from a "right wing group". I can see how effective debating you on this topic is going to be. :banghead:

GambJoe said:

This is one of those ultimate conclusions. As we all know it's not as simple as that. I'm trying to say there's an alternative.




It works in the oil industry. What would you prefer?

Click to expand...

you have to be getting paid to talk like this. did you ever hear of the gulf oil spill? you say which would you prefer I say I prefer you go to work for sarah brady. do you lock up your axes knifes lawn mower chainsaw scissors bleach bug spray etc in a safe? this obsession with be safe 24 hrs a day for eternity is a result of the feminizing men. if people are so scared all the time of getting hurt what fun can you get out of life? lock yourself in a room with plastic sheeting duct taped together

You probably should have read to the end of the thread before posting. You would have seen what you are implying has already been discussed. I'm all for Darwinism and thinning the heard by natural selection. Too bad liberals aren't. People arguing with me over this are totally missing the point. I could give a rat turd less if you don't secure your guns as long as some bunch of antis somewhere, sometime don't use a statistic and media coverage about making laws for "the poor children" because you know they will. If anyone is compiling a statistic on this it will be a left wing anti-gun group. There are thousands of new gun owners right now thanks to Obama and not many of them have the kind of experience as most of us do. I merely don't want to see us put in a losing position by something so simple.

Click to expand...

You probably shouldn't "assume" that I didn't read the entire thread before I posted, I did, but I believe that the quoted comment is a symptom of the real problem, and I really don't care whether others have discussed what I am implying or not. I wanted to stress that the lack of teaching personal responsibility is far more detrimental to our society than anything else. If you don't like that, well bully for you.

Further more I didn't miss your point, I just don't think your point is that important. We are not going to change the antis PoV, and honestly the whole idea that we can has proven to be foolish. Even further more I don't really care what you give or don't give a rat turd about either. I guess what I love about the idea of what America was and what it could still be is that we are not required to think or believe as others do.