The hippies turned into professors, got tenured, and trained herds of lib teachers. They just emerged around you and other straight-thinkig educators like psilocybin mushrooms in cow patties after a rain.

Some interesting stats about firearms accidents (where gun control advocates count felons rightfully shot by LEOs and people up to age 24 as "children").

TR

Those stats are worthless to libs, 'mano. They don't recognize cold, hard facts when arguing.

They procreate too and that doesn't help either.;)

TR, thanks for the research and graphs. Learned something.
Was there a total (deaths and injuries) to link the percentages to?
And what the heck are people falling from to cause that much damage?

You are welcome.

I copied the charts from the website I originally referenced.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Kids like to climb, so I guess the falls are consequences from that.

Looks like if you leave out the 15 year old and up "children" from the "Fatal firearm accidents in 2007 by age groups" portion of the stats, there are about 65 firearms related accidental deaths among children under 15 each year.

TR

Razor, thank you for your reply. I recognize and accept all (but the highlighted above).
The post to which you thoughtfully replied was in response to an earlier post. The statement I was addressing was: rather then try to regulate gun ownership/use, .gov and "liberals" should regulate the auto industry IOT reducing the national fatality rate. My post was an attempt to point out that traffic fatalities are taken very seriously and a great deal of intrusive efforts have been foisted upon us in an effort to reduce those risks.

I addressed the post because it demonstrates a tactic commonly used when an attempt to discuss possible changes is brought up -- the first leg of the stool -- pointing to something else. I recognize that people die in car accidents, fall off of ladders (or somethings that is an amazing statistic) or that people drown a lot. In each of those cases (and all other cited in TR's chart) we accept that for the common welfare stuff should be made and operated in a way -- required to be made and operated -- in a way that is as safe as possible. And stuff -- ladders, swimming pools, bicycles, toys, etc are not meant to cause grievous bodily harm like guns.
And of course the next argument -- second leg -- is that the founders meant "no regulating" when they chose the word "infringed". Which considering that they could never in wildest imagination guessed just how dangerously those single shot muskets would evolve, is difficult to imagine. Nor did they ever imagine that our military would evolve to a point where the 'well-regulated militias" would be totally unnecessary.
And the third leg of the counter-arguement is: regulation will not work. Why? because no one will use a "mandatory lock", bad guys will just circumvent the law so law-abiding citizens shouldn't be subject to those laws because the laws aren't meant for them.

So I'll say it again. If it were me (and I really do think there are a lot of people out there like me) I will grant that only crazies kill innocent people. So, I'm for allowing any law-abiding US citizen over the age of 18 to own any and as many semi-automatic weapons as they want as long as 1) they undergo a background check to prove they are a law-abiding US citizen 18 years or older and 2) with the purchase of any semi-automatic weapon they are required to also purchase an effective gun lock, and 3) the gun-owner assumes complete financial liability for the damage they cause or that their gun causes in the hands of someone else.

What do you say? and why?

Dozer:

Background checks are already in place for 95% or more of the guns sold in this country.

AFAIK, all new guns are already sold with trigger locks. In NC, you have to sign a statement affirming that you understand the law with regards to keeping the weapon secured and out of the reach of minors.

I would draw the line with regards to liability insurance. You are required to have liability insurance on your car in the event YOU are involved in an accident. Not if someone ELSE steals your car and misuses it. Very few people here would agree that what we need in the country is more litigation. Should you be civilly liable if I steal your knife, axe, chainsaw, mower, etc? Why are guns any different? It doesn't matter how well you secure your weapons, if I was determined to get them, I could. Should you then lose your home and life savings as a consequence?

TR

Exactly!

Directed at those whom dirty the gene pool:
And the lazy ass parents can spend the time with and teach their children to never touch a firearm unless Dad (or Mom) is there and tells them it's OK. You know your most important job, being a parent...

Should I be civilly liable if someone steals anything of mine and uses it to cause any injury or damage? Absolutely not! Assuming I took reasonable precautions to prevent the theft. In the example of a car -- I think not leaving the keys in the vehicle and locking the doors and windows reasonably meets that criteria. We take greater care of our cars, perhaps because of the cost and value but we should be concerned about the possible misuse and damage if we fail to take basic common sense measures to secure them against theft.
Regarding less dangerous things your example of the knife, axe, chainsaw, mower i think a reasonable jury would find that if they were secured in a locked garage one would be reasonably exempt from liability. I don't think guns should be any different. If they are stolen but you have them secured with a lock you have acted in a reasonable and prudent manner to prevent misuse. I think it would be reasonable to assume the lock works. If the crazy steals the locked weapon and defeats the lock it would be wrong to hold a law-abiding gun-owner liable.
I agree that we don't want more litigation. A properly worded law would provide clear guidance . . . was the gun stolen? Was the gun locked when it was stolen? Answer yes to both, no liability.

I struggled with that one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUbiwYHLHSM

Safety, like issues such as obtaining food and shelter, is an individual responsibility.

The 2nd Amendment isn't there to guarantee safety.
It is there to guarantee liberty.

Yep, even though I've taught my young ones, weapons are still secured from them...

Common sense is less common these days...

Absolute liability with or without fault -- versus -- due care and reasonableness
 

Two entirely different legal standards illustrated:

Strict liability versus negligence.

We sometimes see calls for a strict liability standard to be applied to firearms ownership.


Strict liability:

Negligence:

Strict liability versus negligence.

Not a treatise -- just a summary for illustration purposes:

The distinction is, however, important because some anti-gun commentators and members of the press blur the significant difference intentionally. Others, do so simply due to lack of knowledge.

Absolute liability with or without fault -- versus -- due care and a reasonableness standard.

Under a strict liability regime, if you duly lock your rifle in a gun safe, located in your locked, alarmed home, removed the firing pin - and your rifle is stolen by a crackhead and sold multiple times to multiple bad guys, and it ends up in the hands of the BATF, who then transfer your rifle to Mexican drug lords...and that rifle...your rifle, which was disabled, locked in a safe, inside your home, protected by an alarm but was, unfortunately, stolen by a crackhead, transferred multiple times, ending up in BATF hands, subsequently transferred to Mexican drug lords a la Fast and Furious and -- ultimately -- your rifle is used to harm someone...YOU ARE LIABLE.

In contrast, under a negligence standard a jury might be asked, among other things, to determine whether you used reasonable precautions in the example above, to safeguard your weapon. And, in today's world, there is still probably a small horde of hungry personal injury lawyers lined up to take the case on a contingent fee basis and either make a name or a small fortune or both -- at your expense. But, at least under a negligence standard of fault -- you have a system that should insulate you from civil liability (but, unfortunately, maybe not financial ruin, disaster and bankruptcy because of the legal costs required to mount an adequate defense).

Which system makes more sense for holding an owner of a firearm liable for misuse? Strict liability or a negligence standard?

You make the call.

More passionate support for the 2A.

Black conservative leaders discuss how the NRA was created to protect freed slaves

Short version:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9RABZq5IoaQ

Full version:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jKMi023Ofro&feature=relmfu