As opposed to comparing the effectiveness of a firearm to a can of mace in self defense?

I do not put myself in this situation in the first place and I recommend making guns illegal so that once again this situation can't occur.

No one "puts themself in this situation" on purpose. That's what my comment about you living in some sort of alternate world in your head is referencing.

Yeah, making guns illegal in Chiraq and NYC is working wonders.

Similar comparison to a no-smoking area in an open plan restaurant is it not?

Jaaash - basically I cannot relate at all to the feeling of needing to carry a ****ing gun on you at all times for self-defense reasons. And I think you have problems if you do feel that way.

I recognize that there probably should be a constitutional right for citizens to defend themselves to a reasonable degree but am unsure if having a gun is a "reasonable degree."

I understand this and am not calling for it. I am asking under two similar circumstances (mom leaves gun in purse, child never touches it and mom leaves gun in purse, child pulls it out and shoots it) what is the difference? Why does one of these scenarios necessitate involvement of child services and not the other?

You asked what point I was making, and it is this. Your logic in differentiating the two seems to be inconsistent, and I want to know if that is actually true or not or if I'm reading it incorrectly. And if I am, I want to know why I am reading it wrong.

The difference is that mom A didn't allow the kid into her purse. This isn't rocket science.

No, in my scenario mom a and b did nothing different. The variable is the child. The control is the mom keeping the gun in her purse with available access.

Then your experiment sucks balls. Like I said before, there are many different variables than isguninpurse.

My scenario doesn't suck at all. Are you telling me there is no way you can fathom two women putting a purse down in reach of a child, and two children acting differently?

This is where the inconsistency is coming in. I presented a scenario where there is a control (mom with gun in purse, accessible to children) and a variable (curiosity of the child.) Based on what you stated earlier, scenario A where the child is more curious leads to a dangerous situation that requires children services. Scenario B with less curious child leads to no requirement of children services.

In your mind, is scenario A more dangerous to the child simply because that child has a higher curiosity level?

So now we've gone from in a purse to negligently in a purse in the exact same way... god you suck at making any sort of point. Those people are the same amount of negligent. No go ahead and think that means something so you can make a fool of yourself quicker.

Jfc you get defensive for no good reason. I'm honestly just trying to get a bead on where you stand because you are so ****ing vague most times.

To that end, a mother who keeps a loaded gun in her purse and leaves it accessible to children is negligent, right?

Obviously. The reason I'm annoyed is because this is the question game. It's ****ing stupid and worthless. Make a damn point or gtfo. Asking me a million questions in the hope I answer one in a way you can finally nail me for after being pwned over and over again is super annoying.

I'm not trying to nail you. I also don't know if I have much of a point. Really, what I'm curious about is if both of these people are negligent, how do we remedy that?

The thing that distresses me the most about gun violence, gun accidents in particular, is that we just have to look back on it in hindsight and say "yep, there was negligence going on there." Why does it have to be that we can't decipher the negligence prior to a kid shooting themselves or somebody else?

I dunno, don't answer any of these if you don't want. I think you and I get heated at each other quite a bit, probably for good reason most times, but this shouldn't be one of em.

Sorry if it seems I'm fishing for some kind of Gotcha moment. I just woke up today depressed. Sometimes you feel the weight of the world's problems on you even though there is nothing you can do about it personally. I wish I could snap my fingers and end all the completely senseless death, not just from guns, but from ****ing everything. Sometimes it just seems like it would be less worry to not even be in the world, ya know?

I dunno man, sorry. Have a good day

Try not to let this distress you too much more because it looks like it for sure has. There is nothing you can really do about any of this. Negligence is not going away as well as the ease of access to firearms in your lifetime. Try focusing a little more on yourself and these spells of depression you've stated having. That is something that you can change. It isn't going to be gun negligence.

Try to have a good day too!

They're convinced that they're going to be involved in one of the nonexistent 2.5 million annual DGU's with their Saturday Night Special against an armed attacker that already has their own gun pulled.

Nonexistent? And what about the times people are mugged by someone with a knife, the gun comes in handy then.

Do you have any actual data on how often this happens?

Especially in a supermarket in broad daylight lol.

I also suspect you would be much more likely to be hurt/killed pulling a gun on someone armed with a knife, than you would be if you gave up your phone and wallet and legged it..

DGU's are extremely rare, and are overstated exponentially by gun-supporters. Their love affair with the Kleck 2.5 million/annually figure is laughable; it's been cut to ribbons many times by people who actually understand sample sizes and self-reporting tendencies.

lol the 2.5m people are far less ******ed than the people who say they're non-existent.

Poll the thread as to which stance is "******ed": mine or people who push the 2.5m number.

By the way, this is admittedly ad hominem and not really relevant, but aren't you a grown adult? WTF is with the constant stupid use of "lol" in posts? This isn't AOL and it stopped being 1997 awhile ago.

In a bit of good gun-related news, for once, we should be pleased. A member of the best team ever to ship a single title has let us know we've been high by 27 on the gun body count for a couple of years now!

http://deadspin.com/chipper-jones-is...her-1684338661

When you count DGUs you have to remember to count everyone who's seen someone "threatening" and remembered that they were carrying their gun and felt better. And every time they saw someone using a gun defensively on television and in the movies.

Let's not forget 365 of them for each person who puts a GUN OWNER HERE sign outside their house.