Carrying a gun? - Page 18

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 

I said

When

 

I expected this objection so I chose my words carefully.

I believe your CDC figures are per gun owners.  BIG difference.  When there is a "firearm accident" it is more likely to be fatal than when there is a car accident.  That is just plain common sense.  In other words, when a person is hit by a stray bullet they are more likely to die then they are when they are in a car accident.  Make sense?

 

It also makes sense that there would be more accidents per car than per gun.  This is because those 100,000 people spend infinitely more time riding in vehicles than they do shooting guns.  Lets see some statistics that compare hours driving with hours shooting and then look at accident rates and fatalities per accident.

The is actually a good example of having emotional issues wrapped up with guns.  I'm not so sure that firearms accidents are much more lethal than car accidents, but let's say for argument's sake that they in fact are.  If there is a very low rate of firearms accidents overall, then shooting sports are still very safe activities.  Look at the number of drownings in the U.S., for instance, to see an activity that is politically favored and therefore gets a pass, versus relatively rare gun accidents that are used as an indictment of the activity itself.  Whenever someone drowns, you don't have liberals complaining about the "swimming lobby," and talking about how they went for a hike but had the experience ruined when they saw some swimmers who seemed nice enough, but, you know, if someone swims, you just never know...

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook ...talking about how they went for a hike but had the experience ruined when they saw some swimmers who seemed nice enough, but, you know, if someone swims, you just never know...

 

To what is this comment in reference?

Swimming is like shooting because they both involve the use of deadly weapons, except for swimming. 

I'm all for banning cars, but I don't know if we can rid society of water. You gotta pick your battles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by telerod15 

To what is this comment in reference?

 

Swimming is like shooting because they both involve the use of deadly weapons, except for swimming. 

 

I'm all for banning cars, but I don't know if we can rid society of water. You gotta pick your battles.

 

People have voiced concerns about guns and shooting sports being risky, and therefore something to be concerned about, more so than other activities.  Thats why it helps to point out how safe they are relative to other common sporting activities. 

For instance, "Compared to hunting, a person is 11 times more likely to be injured playing volleyball, 25 times more likely to be injured cheerleading or bicycle riding and 105 more times likely to be injured playing tackle football. Based upon injuries by number of participants, only recreational camping and billiards offer less risk.  The number of hunters who went afield in 2010 is estimated to be 16.3 million. Of that, approximately 8,122 injuries were sustained, or 50 per 100,000 participants. Interestingly, the vast majority of hunting accidents -- more than 6,600 -- did not involve guns but were instead reportedly tree-stand related."  http://www.petethomasoutdoors.com/2011/12/hunting-safer-than-bowling-cheerleading.html  The rate of hunting accidents involving nonhunters is much much smaller, btw.  You are dealing with statistically very safe activities that pose even less risk to those who are not actively engaged in them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by telerod15 

To what is this comment in reference?

 

Swimming is like shooting because they both involve the use of deadly weapons, except for swimming. 

 

I'm all for banning cars, but I don't know if we can rid society of water. You gotta pick your battles.

 

I'll agree with the "other sports are inherently dangerous" analogy somewhat.

Swimming, especially in the ocean is indeed much more dangerous than most people realize.  A back yard pool improperly secured can be every bit as dangerous to a toddler as a handgun.  But, an unsecured gun is probably a lot more dangerous to a teenager (especially those in close proximity to the teen that is messing with it) than a backyard pool is.

Not many other sports where a mishap can kill someone over a half mile away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

People have voiced concerns about guns and shooting sports being risky, and therefore something to be concerned about, more so than other activities.  Thats why it helps to point out how safe they are relative to other common sporting activities. 

 

For instance, "Compared to hunting, a person is 11 times more likely to be injured playing volleyball, 25 times more likely to be injured cheerleading or bicycle riding and 105 more times likely to be injured playing tackle football. Based upon injuries by number of participants, only recreational camping and billiards offer less risk.  The number of hunters who went afield in 2010 is estimated to be 16.3 million. Of that, approximately 8,122 injuries were sustained, or 50 per 100,000 participants. Interestingly, the vast majority of hunting accidents -- more than 6,600 -- did not involve guns but were instead reportedly tree-stand related."  http://www.petethomasoutdoors.com/2011/12/hunting-safer-than-bowling-cheerleading.html  The rate of hunting accidents involving nonhunters is much much smaller, btw.  You are dealing with statistically very safe activities that pose even less risk to those who are not actively engaged in them.

 

 

 

 

 

I asked what "...talking about how they went for a hike but had the experience ruined when they saw some swimmers who seemed nice enough, but, you know, if someone swims, you just never know..." was in reference to.

It seems like you are arguing against someone who made a similar comment about hunters, but I don't see the analogy to anything in the post you quoted or elsewhere in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 
People have voiced concerns about guns and shooting sports being risky, and therefore something to be concerned about, more so than other activities.  Thats why it helps to point out how safe they are relative to other common sporting activities. 

For instance, "Compared to hunting, a person is 11 times more likely to be injured playing volleyball, 25 times more likely to be injured cheerleading or bicycle riding and 105 more times likely to be injured playing tackle football. Based upon injuries by number of participants, only recreational camping and billiards offer less risk.  The number of hunters who went afield in 2010 is estimated to be 16.3 million. Of that, approximately 8,122 injuries were sustained, or 50 per 100,000 participants. Interestingly, the vast majority of hunting accidents -- more than 6,600 -- did not involve guns but were instead reportedly tree-stand related."  http://www.petethomasoutdoors.com/2011/12/hunting-safer-than-bowling-cheerleading.html  The rate of hunting accidents involving nonhunters is much much smaller, btw.  You are dealing with statistically very safe activities that pose even less risk to those who are not actively engaged in them.

What does the National Shooting Sports Foundation call an injury? Data with the number of deaths and serious injuries would be far more useful, as it's much easier to sprain your wrist or fall when riding a bike or playing volleyball than it is to die while involved in those activities.

However, injuries while hunting have a much greater potential to be serious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke2320 

What does the National Shooting Sports Foundation call an injury? Data with the number of deaths and serious injuries would be far more useful, as it's much easier to sprain your wrist or fall when riding a bike or playing volleyball than it is to die while involved in those activities.

However, injuries while hunting have a much greater potential to be serious.

http://nssf.org/PDF/research/Hunting%20Safe%20Activity%20Chart%20NSSF%20branded.pdfhttp://nssf.org/PDF/research/Hunting%20Safe%20Activity%20Chart%20NSSF%20branded.pdf

(b) Total Injuries: Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) 2010 estimates. Per CPSC, NEISS injury data may contain both injury and fatality figures for some activities. The majority of injuries are non-fatal, and specific breakouts of injury versus fatality data by activity are unavailable.* Hunting with firearms total injuries/incidents include CPSC NEISS injury data for Tree Stands (hunting) as well as estimated injuries from IHEA Hunter Incident Clearinghouse.

They can't break it out, apparently.  Since they include tree stand falls for hunting, I infer that they also include falls and heart attacks, etc. due to hunting as well.  You make a valid point with your question, e.g., I don't think football is as dangerous as cheerleading in terms of risk of life-changing injury, though obviously both the see-the-ortho type injuries, and repetitive head trauma, are more of an issue for football than for cheerleading.  I have suspicions that hunting is more like cheerleading than football when you look at the distribution of the numbers, though far safer than cheerleading.

That's just hunting, btw, including treestands.  Bird hunting obviously will be safer on average -- except for the ski-bum variety of chukar hunting, where both falls and heart attacks are certainly possibilities for people like me (what I am talking about is hunting chukar along alpine rocky outcrops while keeping up with pointers -- actually good general conditioning for skiing, and really not riskier than any other bird hunting, though it willl get your blood moving aerobically).  Shooting sporting  clays, far safer yet. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

If a hunter does something stupid and shoots himself or a member of his hunting party, that's a bad thing; same as if a hunter accidentally drives over a member of his hunting party with his truck.  

Now, Kook, wouldn't that depend on which member of the hunting party it was...I mean there's always that one annoying guy...
 

You don't need to convince me of anything.  I may not be all that passionate about it, but I'm in your corner on this issue.  I just prefer to call a spade a spade and don't like what I think of as flawed analogies being tossed around so often in these debates.  A gun is designed to kill; be it a deer, a duck, an enemy soldier, or a burglar sneaking off with your T.V., that's its primary purpose.  That's why my argument tends to be along the lines of "Yes, they can be used in a dangerous way, which is why striving to make gun ownership and use as safe as can be reasonably expected is so important."  That's excessively simplistic, of course, but I was trying to keep it down to soundbite-length.

Not to pick on ya, but I can't help but note that I have no doubt more people are injured pursuing a multitude of sports than are injured in hunting accidents.  However, I would betcha more people are shot dead in hunting accidents than in volleyball matches.....unless it's a seriously hardcore volleyball league!

On the flip side, I do get mildly annoyed by the suggestion that guns are "inherently dangerous" instruments that mysteriously kill and maim on their own, an assertion that prompted me to post in this thread again.  I knew I should have let it go...Curses!!  

We do have a right to bear arms in this country, and if a citizen feels compelled to legally arm themselves for legal reasons, I say that's his or her business.  I'm not bothered by being in the company of a law-abiding, responsible, and lawfully armed citizen.  It's just that a bit too often to my mind, the "responsible" part of that equation seems to be lacking.  Fatal gun accidents are indeed statistically rare, but a little more responsibility on the part of too many gun owners (and I am one) would sure make them even rarer.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skierish 

 

We do have a right to bear arms in this country, and if a citizen feels compelled to legally arm themselves for legal reasons, I say that's his or her business.  I'm not bothered by being in the company of a law-abiding, responsible, and lawfully armed citizen.  It's just that a bit too often to my mind, the "responsible" part of that equation seems to be lacking.  Fatal gun accidents are indeed statistically rare, but a little more responsibility on the part of too many gun owners (and I am one) would sure make them even rarer.  

 

Chop busting aside, this isn't all that different from how I feel about it.  I don't understand or relate to the need some feel to carry in public, probably never will.  I will taunt gun slingers  relentlessly as long as it is virtual and out of range of your gun hahaha.

Still, at least twice a year bystanders, sometimes people just sitting in their homes are hit and killed by stray 306 rounds somewhere not too far from here.  Two or three years ago someone posted a video of some drunk hunters tossing live rounds in to their camp fire, LOTS OF THEM!  Idoits!

I've done a fair amount of shooting, shotguns, rifles, and hand guns, haven't felt the urge to in many many years though.  There are so many other activities I would rather do with my spare time.  I do own some firearms stored in a safe place I could get them from quickly should there ever be a breakdown of local law and order such as the aftermath of Katrina presented.  Other than that, I'm perfectly OK going to any part of town at any time with only a phone and reliable vehicle.  As far as back country, the prospect of wolves might make me want a gun.  Bears or moose, probably not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 

Chop busting aside, this isn't all that different from how I feel about it.  

So, you're basically in Kook's corner, too???  

Tsk, tsk, all this arguing, all for naught.....

I think the difference is that I'm not threatened by a lawfully armed citizenry that is law-abiding and responsible, and I'm sufficiently comfortable that the large majority of gun owners are, in fact, responsible.  It's just that I consider the few irresponsible ones, such as the parents of the kid in the incident cited by Posuane, a few too many.  My understanding from a few of your earlier posts was that you're opposed to armed civilians under most circumstances.  There's no way I'm going back through this thread to check on that, though!

I don't doubt the drunken hunter story, unfortunately.  It's certainly true that copious amounts of alcohol, testosterone, and firearms just don't mix all that well.  The reason that gun sportsmen suck as Kook can be understandably defensive on this issue is that no matter how isolated such incidents may be, they get sensationalized by the media.  I even understand the media's response to some extent, because such behavior "shocks the conscience" of most observers in a way that daily, garden-variety car accidents cannot.  Such incidents also provide easy ammo (pun intended again) to those with an agenda of oppressive gun control....yet another irritant to the bulk of us "good" gun owners.

I suspect that when the founding fathers crafted Amendment #2, they were aware that it would entail some small degree of hazard, yet they determined it was still an essential aspect of the free (for white males) and democratic (for white male landowners) society they envisaged.  I have wondered if they had foreseen urban "crack wars," gang crime, gun-smuggling, and high-capacity, fully automatic assault rifles, would the Right to Bear Arms have been crafted in the same manner...or at all?  Maybe it would have.  In fact, I think it likely would have, since I believe they were more concerned about the citizenry being able to protect themselves from future government tyranny, but I still find it an idle curiosity. 

FWIW, I can legally carry a concealed sidearm whenever I want, but I almost never do anymore.  It's actually quite a nuisance to do so, and I just don't think I'll be "jacked" on the mean streets of Sagle, Idaho.    

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skierish 

So, you're basically in Kook's corner, too???  

Tsk, tsk, all this arguing, all for naught.....

 

I suspect that when the founding fathers crafted Amendment #2, they were aware that it would entail some small degree of hazard, yet they determined it was still an essential aspect of the free (for white males) and democratic (for white male landowners) society they envisaged.  I have wondered if they had foreseen urban "crack wars," gang crime, gun-smuggling, and high-capacity, fully automatic assault rifles, would the Right to Bear Arms have been crafted in the same manner...or at all?  Maybe it would have.  In fact, I think it likely would have, since I believe they were more concerned about the citizenry being able to protect themselves from future government tyranny, but I still find it an idle curiosity. 

 

 

This is the main reason it irks me when people get all passionate about guns and gun ownership.  I believe there would be a lot fewer illegal guns on the street if so many citizens didn't feel the need to stockpile personal arsenals.  When the local teen thugs hear that someone in the neighborhood has a nice gun collection they target that house for burglary.   In other words, making it common knowledge that you have guns makes you MORE likely to be a victim of crime when you aren't home.  When it happens, of course you run out and buy more guns because you feel even more vulnerable.  Viscious cycle that results in gun lobby getting richer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skierish 

.....that gun sportsmen suck as Kook can be..... 

Yikes, I just saw what this said!    That's a typo, Kook, and the site won't let me edit to fix it....Curses yet again!  I meant "such," with an H, not a K!

CR, burglars targeting homes with guns is a hollywood myth.  The vast, vast majority of Burglars are opportunists.  They wander the streets looking for piled up newspapers, stuffed mailboxes, uncut grass, and other signs of absence.  They really, really like garage doors left open, especially if it's rear-facing into an alley.  They sometimes will just knock on door after door with some story or another until they find one where no one is home.  

If they run across a gun...or cash...in the course of their opportunistic burglary, they view it as so much the better.  Given that so many households have guns, it's not unusual for them to score in that way.  If a hoodlum is specifically seeking many guns, sporting goods retailers will be the much more likely target.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skierish 

CR, burglars targeting homes with guns is a hollywood myth.  The vast, vast majority of Burglars are opportunists.  They wander the streets looking for piled up newspapers, stuffed mailboxes, uncut grass, and other signs of absence.  They really, really like garage doors left open, especially if it's rear-facing into an alley.  They sometimes will just knock on door after door with some story or another until they find one where no one is home.  

 

I know people in law enforcement that say that it isn't a good idea to have a "premises protected by Smith and Wesson" sign in your window or to brag to neighbors about your gun collection. I do concede that commercial thefts and especially illegal sale by dealers are responsible for more illegal guns on the street than home burglary.  But, it still increases your odds of being robbed if thugs know you have guns (or gold, or cash etc).  It doesn't deter them from casing your home and hitting it when you leave.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lonewolf210 

And people get trampled and killed during black Friday shopping. People get killed accidentally by knives. Accidents happen regardless of the tool. Here's a snopes article about elevators killing people http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/elevator.asp

 

It's also funny that you say you would carry a gun for wolves but not bears or moose. Wolves are far more likely to leave you alone then either of those.  

 

Yeah, the whole bystander thing is another leftie fixation.  The reality is that hunting, as noted, is already safer than many other recreational activities, but the odds of non-hunters being involved in a hunting accident are incredibly smaller yet.  As with anything where you are dealing with large numbers, you do still have some tragic accidents, but you also do have tragic, rare accidents with bystanders getting hit by people skiing, sledding, and throwing snowballs.  I could see someone complaining about large numbers of vehicles on the road, particularly around opening day, just as for opening day of trout season, or for a concert, or for a ski area -- and large numbers of vehicles for anything do cause some unavoidable issues, for any activity. 

There's an attempt in some quarters to create a hierarchy of activities, where e.g. hunting, or even the right to carry guns in wild areas, is regulated heavily, regular fishing only a bit less so, postholing is ok, and then skinning and catch and release flyfishing with barbless hooks (even though barbless doesn't really save fish) both sit at the top of the totem pole.  I hear that if you suffer a heart attack or fatal fall flyfishing it's not even a flyfishing fatality, it's called dying doing something that you loved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lonewolf210 

And people get trampled and killed during black Friday shopping. People get killed accidentally by knives. Accidents happen regardless of the tool. Here's a snopes article about elevators killing people http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/elevator.asp

 

It's also funny that you say you would carry a gun for wolves but not bears or moose. Wolves are far more likely to leave you alone then either of those.  

 

None of that other stuff that is caused by negligence of others (using something designed exclusively for killing) happens to people sitting in their homes having dinner or standing on their front porch.  Just curious, how would you compare the negative externalities of smoking (fire hazards, second hand smoke, etc) to those of firearms in the back country?  How about in the city? Any difference?

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 

...Just curious, how would you compare the negative externalities of smoking (fire hazards, second hand smoke, etc) to those of firearms in the back country?  How about in the city? Any difference?...

 

Well, to start with, there's not much secondhand smoke from shooting.   (Those not familiar with firearms might take that to mean there's some -- to be clear, there is for practical purposes none.)  It's pretty hard to start a fire by shooting.  When looking at hunting accidents, the risk to non-hunters is incredibly low.  So, as regards risk to others from engaging in the activity, it's probably safer towards others than, say, hiking Huntington Ravine on Mount Washington, far safer than climbing the Pinnacle on Mt. Washington, and safer than skiing Tuck's. 

In short, there is a political story for those who don't like the activity, or perhaps as is often more the case, people who don't like a particular user group.  There is not a practical concern.  Politically favored activities don't experience the same bitching.

Now, people may wonder how on earth you could negatively impact others by hiking or climbing or skiing on Mt. Washington.  Think it through.
 

What's worse in back country, stray bullets and gun shot noise or second hand smoke?  How about indoors? Just sayin' can't really condemn smoking outdoors while not condemning gunfire and bullets outdoors.  Campfires are probably much more of a large fire risk than smoking too, but smokers get villianized in much the same way as hunters do, however hunters accidentally kill far more people than smokers do outdoors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 

What's worse in back country, stray bullets and gun shot noise or second hand smoke?  How about indoors? Just sayin' can't really condemn smoking outdoors while not condemning gunfire and bullets outdoors.  Campfires are probably much more of a large fire risk than smoking too, but smokers get villianized in much the same way as hunters do, however hunters accidentally kill far more people than smokers do outdoors.

Nothing worse then those EVIL bastard hunters who smoke!!! They are all going to hell.  
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdiddy 

Nothing worse then those EVIL bastard hunters who smoke!!! They are all going to hell.  
 

 

And, the game can smell them coming a mile away! 

Quote:

Originally Posted by lonewolf210 

How about people driving cars through buildings or hitting pedestrians? Or planes that rash and hit buildings (does happen albeit not very often)? Or an attack/guard dog that attacks a child?

 

Cars and planes are far more useful and necessary to everyday people than guns are.  Cars and planes are designed for transportation that most people need greatly.  Guns are designed for killing and are used by most people for recreation.  Comparing accidental deaths caused by a transportation necessity gone awry isn't quite the same thing as comparing a recreational killing machine that kills a person instead of a deer.  It is much harder to justify a recreation that has the propensity to become lethal than it is to justify a daily necessity that sometimes result in death.

Now if you want to use a gun strictly for self defense and never fire it outside of a range unless under animal attack as this thread asks that is more as a necessity than recreational purpose... protection during back country travel.  Accidentally killing some while trying to protect yourself (necessity) is a bit different than accidentally killing someone while shooting a a trophy (recreation).

People ban smoking outdoors Or would rather not hang out with smokers say on the chairlift mostly because they don't want to endure the discomfort, smell, slight fire risk, slight cancer risk.    Arguments for banning guns in the wild are similar, noise, slight risk of accidental injury or death of bystanders.

Horses, mountain bikes, ATVs, and snowmobiles, to pick a few popular outdoor activities, kill a number of people not engaged in the activity as well.   For sure very few people really need to ride a horse anywhere, anymore -- but it is a valuable recreational outlet.

The idea that risk to bystanders is a meaningful objection in the case of guns in the outdoors is a cover for the fact that some people clearly just have a problem with guns.  Crgildart, I am struck that you say you do, yourself, keep a cache of guns, yet have problems with others owning and using guns, and also have made the choice to live in what you self-report to be an extremely violent neighborhood.  Perhaps you should resolve some of your inner conflicts before trying to speak, without knowing, about a very safe and culturally rich activity that both can have large practical benefits, in the case of protection, and environmental and ecological awareness benefits in the case of recreation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

Horses, mountain bikes, ATVs, and snowmobiles, to pick a few popular outdoor activities, kill a number of people not engaged in the activity as well.   For sure very few people really need to ride a horse anywhere, anymore -- but it is a valuable recreational outlet.

 

Again, those things aren't designed for the sole purpose of killing.  My point isn't that I fear guns, my point (that seems to soar way over some heads here not unlike bullets) is that it is hypocritical for someone that loves to hunt to object to another individual smoking in a chairlift or other outdoor location.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 
Crgildart, I am struck that you say you do, yourself, keep a cache of guns, yet have problems with others owning and using guns, and also have made the choice to live in what you self-report to be an extremely violent neighborhood.  Perhaps you should resolve some of your inner conflicts before trying to speak, without knowing, about a very safe and culturally rich activity that both can have large practical benefits, in the case of protection, and environmental and ecological awareness benefits in the case of recreation.

 

Sure. I keep some guns along with other supplies I hope to never actually need.  In a perfect world where there was no violence and plentiful food no one would need guns.  This week a 14 year old kid was killed playing with a neighbor's handgun.  The neighbor had a CCL by the way.  The father of the victim said that they also were gun owners and avid hunters, belonged to the gun club, kid had taken gun safety courses... yet still died "because someone else didn't secure their firearms properly"-exact words of the father.  I suspect there a lot of of folks that have guns but wish most others did not.  I'm just being honest.  There are way too many idiots out there that legally own guns.   I'd prefer to be the only idiot in all honesty hahaha..

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 

Again, those things aren't designed for the sole purpose of killing.  My point isn't that I fear guns, my point (that seems to soar way over some heads here not unlike bullets) is that it is hypocritical for someone that loves to hunt to object to another individual smoking in a chairlift or other outdoor location.

Sure. I keep some guns along with other supplies I hope to never actually need.  In a perfect world where there was no violence and plentiful food no one would need guns.  This week a 14 year old kid was killed playing with a neighbor's handgun.  The neighbor had a CCL by the way.  The father of the victim said that they also were gun owners and avid hunters, belonged to the gun club, kid had taken gun safety courses... yet still died "because someone else didn't secure their firearms properly"-exact words of the father.  I suspect there a lot of of folks that have guns but wish most others did not.  I'm just being honest.  There are way too many idiots out there that legally own guns.   I'd prefer to be the only idiot in all honesty hahaha..

Your hypocrisy re: gun ownership is duly noted, as is your ability to recite out of context anecdotes regarding gun accidents.

Analytically, hunting and smoking tobacco are two very different activities, with different personal and social costs and benefits, and so trying to link them in an outdoors context is pretty weak. Hunting can help stabilize game animal populations, can be an important source of data for wildlife biologists, creates a large conservation-minded constituency, has other important recreational and social benefits; smoking cigs, not so much. 

 If you are trying to paint hunting in an unfavorable light, I can see how linking it to cigarettes could be attractive, though.  You are again underscoring that, primarily, you don't like guns or activities involving guns, whether biathlon or hunting -- except for the guns you yourself own. 

I will admit that shooting deer is a lot more preferable to hitting them in a car at 70 mph.  However, there are also quite a few legal gun owners that shouldn't be gun owners at all, see recent example discussed above.  Gotta thin BOTH herds IMHO.

I rather gun down Sgt. Bayles than Bambi. I know that's wrong, but I'm only human. I support stringent gun control because most of us are only human. We make mistakes. Sometimes horrible mistakes that ruin our lives and the lives of our dead victims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 

I will admit that shooting deer is a lot more preferable to hitting them in a car at 70 mph.  However, there are also quite a few legal gun owners that shouldn't be gun owners at all, see recent example discussed above.  Gotta thin BOTH herds IMHO.

http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/Resources/res_stats_services/Pages/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.aspx#question12  Well, to take National Safety Council data, in 2007 there were 138 deaths due to unintentional discharge of a firearm among the 0-19 age group.  Given the extremely low rate of fatalities and accidents, I would not say that there are "quite a few" gun owners out there who are not responsible.  If people are concerned primarily about enhancing their or their family's safety, they would do far better drilling into them avy awareness if they ski out of bounds in areas where slides occur, and teaching them how to be careful in the summer when hiking in steep areas, and particularly in alpine areas in places like CO that are prone to 2:30 thunderboomers with lots of lighting, than they will fretting about whether other people may carry guns in the outdoors.  E.g., the guy hunting grouse in CO with his dog is zero threat to you, in practical terms, but continuing up on a hike at 1:30 because you want to tick the summit, even though clouds are building and you see sporadic lightning, is a significant risk and one you see in the outdoors all the time. 

The dangers of backcountry skiing and mountain hiking/climbing are almost wholly unrelated to the subject of guns. Try to stay on subject. CTKook, the odd chance that a gun will be of value while ski touring... not the dangers of avalanche, rock fall, etc. or any other hazards in which being armed will offer no advantage.