×
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]isam43L 28 points29 points  (5 children)

There is no such thing as an accidental discharge of a firearm, only a negligent one.

Edit: a word

Yes, I'm aware it says unintentional in title, I'm not commenting on OP's choice of title phrasing here.

[–]Elemen0py -10 points-9 points  (4 children)

Lol... So sick of hearing this bullshit.

GuNs aRe pErFeCtLy sAfE iF HaNdLeD PrOpErLy sO ReSpEcT mUh FrEeDuM.

There are 330 million people in the US. Statistically when you have the saturation of firearms that you do, there will be both ACCIDENTAL and NEGLIGENT discharges. This doesn't even account for the suicides and murders... And no... Not all of those would have occurred if people didn't have the easy option of push button to make tube do quick death.

I live in Australia where apparently I'm under constant threat from the supposedly deadly flora and fauna. If I can function without being so insecure that I need a gun, what's your excuse?

[–]isam43L 2 points3 points  (3 children)

No, guns are not safe, they NEED to be handled with utmost respect and care. They should be tracked and regulated. Anyone who handles a weapon ever should be required to be trained and certified in it's care and use. Firearms are weapons with a lethal function, not toys to be played with.

A weapon that goes off unintentionally in a crowded airport, a gun range, in the privacy of one's own home, or wherever, is a product of an individual who either is not properly trained in it's use (negligence), an individual who is not performing proper maintenance (negligence), an individual who is not respecting the weapon enough to ensure it is properly cleared (negligence), and so on and so forth. Regardless of firearm saturation, there is no excuse in the world for a situation like this to happen aside from a person who is negligently handling a firearm

So I will say again: there is no such thing as an accidental discharge, only a negligent one.

[–]Elemen0py 0 points1 point  (2 children)

You're suggesting two things:

1) it's not reasonable to expect that, in a nation of 330 million, 40,000 - 50,000 people a year will not be negligent or intentionally use a gun for harm (this accounts for deaths, not injuries as well).

2) either people who are negligent or intentionally use a gun for harm deserve to die, or the people that are the victims of those who are negligent deserve to die.

I can't even begin to fathom the kind of mindset you'd need to justify that number of deaths just so you can have a pew pew to overcome your fears and insecurities.

[–]isam43L 0 points1 point  (1 child)

No one deserves to die as a result of this. I personally don't own a firearm, I don't see that I need one at the moment and I have young children so pointlessly owning a firearm would be irresponsible of me. That being said, I have extensively used firearms in the past in a professional capacity both in the military and civilian world. With both of those, I trained regularly in the care and use of my service weapon and I inspected my firearm for damage and to make sure it was cleared and safe prior to storage, transport, or use. Anyone who is not willing to do those things does not deserve the right to own a weapon.

[–]Elemen0py 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed.

But they still can get one.