General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIn the last 5 months there have been at least 71 kids killed by guns. Average just under 6 years old
________________________
Mother Jones ?@MotherJones 8h
The average age of these 71+ kids killed by guns since Newtown? Just under 6 years old: http://bit.ly/11lyxNn
In the last five months there have been at least 71 of them. None older than 12, several as young as five or six months, all of their lives ended by a bullet.
read more: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/gun-deaths-children-newtown-caroline-sparks-crickett-firearms
Google spreadsheet view of list of victims since Newtown where you can access the full text
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsHoDKL16X0wdEt0Wno2TVZkcGZZRGczV2VyTVcxLVE#gid=0
Josh Marshall ?@joshtpm 21m
Every day >>> 5-Year-Old Texas Boy Shot In The Head By Another Child http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/5-year-old-texas-boy-shot-in-head … via @hunterw
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Botany
(70,498 posts)
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)That pesky little constitutional amendment called the second amendment might get in the way. I do not think lawn darts are covered by that.
IveWornAHundredPants
(237 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)Botany
(70,498 posts)They are not part of any kind of well regulated militia (which we have covered nicely w/ the national
guard thank you) and their 2nd amendment rights have been crushing our 1st amendment right to
be able to peacefully assemble @ schools, churches, movie theaters, and so on. The 2nd amendment
argument has also by passed our basic freedoms that were written into the preamble to the Declaration
of Independence .... "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)One of these things is not referring to the other.
(Whatever else your opinion on the 2nd, notwithstanding.)
Botany
(70,498 posts)yes or no?
sarisataka
(18,612 posts)of Militia and Army.
The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard. Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."
Though equal in theory, this relationship has favored the Federal government in practice. The use of Guard units in Iraq and Afghanistan could be seriously questioned on Constitutional grounds.
Further, case law has favored Washington over the home State in deciding how the Guard may be used.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It has nothing to do with a militia.
The closest analogy would be State Guards, which are not State National Guard, and cannot be federalized. (For the organized militia. For the unorganized militia, US code specifies all males between the ages of 17 and 45)
Roy Rolling
(6,915 posts)Don't pretend the gun issue is about the constitution, it is about protecting the profits of weapon sellers. None of these kids belonged to a "well-regulated militia"---which is given the right to exist in the constitution. What to speak of the significant and germane differences between year 1776 musket firearms and 2013 weaponry.
This is a public safety issue that has been hijacked by commercial interests and their mouthpieces like the NRA, who want to make selfish profits regardless of the cost of lives in American society.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)Yet the First Amendment still applies to newer technologies, and thank Goddess for that.
Like it or lump it, the Second Amendment is the main impediment to passing restrictive gun controls in this country.
You can either work to repeal it (good luck with that), or accept it and move on.
The SCOTUS has spoken, not just in the Heller and McDonald rulings, but in earlier rulings as well: the Militia consists of every able bodied citizen, aged 18 to 45.
But if you want to make the case that people over 45 shouldn't be able to own guns, go for it. 
DanTex
(20,709 posts)First off, if the supreme court weren't stacked with right-wingers, then the second amendment would still be about militias. But even with the Scalia interpretation, everything that has been proposed is clearly constitutional.
The main impediment is right-wingers and their gun obsession.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)Really? Now please find me any kind of reasoning on that.
Or if you will admit that we can indeed regulate guns away from 7 year olds, please say so.
BTW, who's the captain of your militia? Regulations require a captain with a currently maintained roll. You wouldn't be belonging to an imaginary militia, would you?
LAGC
(5,330 posts)I have no problem with safe-storage laws, in households with children present. I just take issue with the idea of blanket bans of certain types of guns.
If the gun control side would start offering some reasonable safety suggestions instead of advocating for the banning of entire classes of arms (like the AWB), we might finally be able to make some progress in this area...
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)and registered both in the casing and in the slug. I'd also like to see every barrel on file so that any round could be identified as having been fired from a particular weapon.
Every round accounted for and identified; every weapon accounted for and identified; scrupulous background checks, not this instant stuff, including a psych workup after administering the MMPI (this one would catch most of the mass shooters lately), including an inspection of the storage facility where the weapons will be secured (now this one would have prevented Sandy Hook), annual inspection of every weapon and an inventory update on ammunition to account for rounds used, license for every user to prove safety proficiency, renewed annually, liability insurance for every weapon in an amount sufficient to cover significant misuse (say $10 million as a round number, until some experience is gained, then adjust), and required paperwork transfer with all the above checks for every weapon bought, received as a gift, or inherited. At the time of transfer, any existing weapon that is not id'd by barrel from the factory will be id'd at that time. I'd also think a psych workup should be repeated at least once a decade for all owners, period, with confiscation for those failing. Things change.
Heavy prison time (20-50 years for each violation) ought to help with enforcement, as well as a lifetime prohibition on ownership for violators.
So new weapons would be subject to all the above immediately, as well as all ammunition. Existing weapons would be brought in as transfers occurred, and regular psych exams would certainly do more good than the current system: "he had money, so he looked okay to me," and I'm pretty sure all online sales should cease. Delivery of ammunition and weapons should be face to face with positive ID on both sides.
TnDem
(538 posts)Do you realize how ridiculous that idea is? This shows your lack of understanding of firearms, the simple technology and reality.
I have a neighbor that recently bought 2000 rounds of military surplus Russian steel core rifle ammunition from mail-order.
This stuff was sealed in crates and hermetically sealed tins....It was made in 1951 and looked like it was made yesterday.
How do you propose we deal with the hundreds of millions of rounds that are already stacked in people's garages like this? What about reloaders that cast their own bullets? Wildcatters that create their own cartridges?
It's ridiculous for someone that knows better...
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)Ammo already out there will eventually be shot, and we'll get 'em on the replacement buys.
If reloaders use marked casings, we have a trail on those. If not, they'll eventually have to.
No plan is 100%, but go ahead and say that this one will not save a single life. We always say each life is priceless, but always seem to back up when actual dollars are involved. Not me. One life is good enough.
And you're going to write off secure storage, mental health evaluations, licensing, and insurance as nothing? Really?
Now let me tell you what's ridiculous - the idea that even a good-sized gun would have the slightest effect against drone strikes, B-2 strikes, even Blackhawk actions, never mind cruise missiles or tactical nukes. See, if the government is REALLY going to enslave us all, they won't bother with rifles or pistols. The whole nightmare scenario is very good for the arms industry, but for every child whose childhood is stunted because tons of money was spent on firearms instead of child items, I feel sorry for those kids. They're trapped inside a mentally ill version of the world, and because inevitably, this world view includes not talking about home life, professionals like me are stymied on getting them the help they so desperately need to become happy humans, not hunkered-down ones.
Truth is, hoarders are like the Maginot Line - tactics for the last war, when the next war is going to be blitzkrieg, a step around that line. Well, have a nice day. I'm going to the cemetery to visit my mother.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)You want to mark and track tens of billions of rounds? That is just nuts. I have surplus military ammo in sealed cans that are 50 years old and in prefect shape. Just shot some the other day. It will last me years. Do I have to take it in and get every round marked? I like the voluntary licensing if it will take the place of a background check. I think that people should be held liable for these accidents that are nothing but negligence. By all means we should fully fund mental health and include those records in the NICS database. I purchased a pistol online and had to pick it up at an FFL and perform background check as it is the law already. Private sales within the same state via the paper, bulletin board, Craig list are all just private sales between individuals. We might be able to tighten that up. some.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)Sooner or later, the old will be shot, or if it makes people less likely to fire off rounds in order to hoard unmarked rounds, that's okay, too.
The oil companies track every barrel of oil sent by truck, pipeline, or rail using microfiche chips afloat in the oil. Billions of barrels at a time, This is so that when spills occur, we know whose oil it is. I was an inventory specialist for a decade before I started teaching, and the technology is there right now to mark each casing and slug with a unique identifier.
I mean, there are at least 15 billion web pages, each one with a unique identifier. And as usage becomes universal, the marking tech will become negligible in cost.
I promise it's feasible, and I think it's perfectly okay to just start with new; let the old eventually be used up. If anything, law enforcement can use the prospect of unmarked ammo to sting criminals from the get-go.
Thanks for saying that we can do some things. I appreciate that.
TnDem
(538 posts)Listen, this is the problem with varying cultures on this forum....You have no clue about my rural lifestyle or the realities of rural gun ownership.
Understand this....There are THOUSANDS of people in the United States that currently own 10,000+ rounds of ammunition and also have the internal capability to produce that much more....Add in the stored military surplus ammo that has been flooding this country for 50 years and the amount of rounds in private hands are probably in the billions....Get that figure in your mind for awhile..
You can currently go to places like Classic Arms, and purchase military surplus tins of ammunition that are unopened, hermetically sealed military surplus ammo....You can buy all you want and people have been...For decades.
There are BILLIONS and BILLIONS of rounds of this ammunition stored in private hands in the USA...It's enough to last 200 years+ and the ammunition will last that long the way it is airtight packaged....Add to that the handloaders and wildcatters and it adds another 100 years.
Get educated and start to understand the issue....What you propose is ludicrous..
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)The reality is this: the kind of hoarders you are talking about, and I know some personally, are in a tiny minority in this country. There may be thousands, as you say; there may even be a million. That leaves 320 million not.
And billions of rounds owned by thousands mean millions for each one of them. Or if a million, thousands for each.
These serious shooters are popping of tens of thousands of rounds a month, maybe half a million a year. So in a few years, there will be none left if they had millions, or in months if they have thousands.
I would of course never sell military surplus. It would be destroyed. All will eventually work itself out. And we do all of these things and more for automobiles and hazardous chemicals, so it is not ludicrous to do it for guns and ammo - in fact, if it were, no one would argue with me - they'd let me give it a try and let me fail.
What they mean is, they don't want it. Different deal.
1. No one has to hunt in order to eat in this country.
2. If foreigners invade, it will be nuclear weapons and popguns won't matter.
3. If the government puts us in camps, it will be drones, cruise missiles, bunker bombs, B-2s, Blackhawks and more. Again, popguns won't matter.
4. So the idea of allowing these guns and ammo to be owned at all is an optional thing, but I'm willing to humor shooters, much like I do golfers, even though I abhor their hogging of desirable open spaces instead of letting kids play on it.
So please understand. I know what you mean. I live with what you mean daily and have my entire life. It's not my lack of understanding - it's my choices, just as you have made yours. These will play out in public eventually, stripped of gimmicks and political grandstanding, and it certainly may not be in my lifetime - many suffragettes died without a vote, but they didn't stop, and we should be glad they didn't. This will be the same someday.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)when the firearm-owning community went apeshit over what would happen to the price of reloaded cartridges.
They reversed the policy announcement in two days.
If not this administration, which?
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)Who can tell? But if we quit, we can predict no one will.
Heck, Nixon went to China. I remember that one well.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Assuming the shells are left at the scene of the crime. (For instance, revolvers don't automatically eject casings, and there are 'catch' basins for semi-auto weapons of various types)
Microstamping the round doesn't work so well. The marks haven't been found to survive deformation on impact, and some areas of the bullet cannot be used for abrasion in the barrel as it is fired.. Neither laser etching, nor physical microstamping has been found to work. There is no currently reliable off-the-shelf tech for this, yet. Someday.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)Guaranteed money to be made - faster production and more innovation.
Thanks for the info.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Maybe etched tungsten tags mixed in with the molten lead when casting the bullets. Something with a much higher melting temp. It has to be forged into the bullet.
How you would later extract the tags.. you'd have to melt the fragments (after recording evidence like ballistic etchings).
This sounds... costly to me. Which makes adoption... a challenge.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)I mean, if we can afford all kinds of wars around the world, Gitmo, blah blah, we can afford this. Just sez me.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There are TRILLIONS of rounds of ammunition in circulation.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)According to the NRA (and I do trust them to know):
The National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates that 10-12 billion rounds of ammunition are produced domestically each year, while billions more are imported.
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/issues/ammunition.aspx
It would take 100 years at 10 billion per year to get ONE trillion, and not a shot fired in that century to still have it. More trillions, more centuries without firing a shot.
Now we both know that shots are fired every year, right?
But the argument is valid no matter. There are finite rounds produced in the past. Eventually, they will all be fired. If all new rounds are marked, then eventually, all rounds in possession will be marked.
I can wait. I'm patient.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Imports range from new manufacture, to old cases of 7.62x54R dug up from under some demolished apartment building in the Ukraine.
Then there's the handloading markets using milsurp brass, plus milsurp complete ammo, which wasn't included in production figures because it was made years prior. (Military contracts aren't included in the 10-12bn rounds number) Certainly many trillions have been produced worldwide.
Including smaller rimfire ammo, like .22's, I have in excess of 30k rounds in my home. I burn through it pretty slow.
Now, say I was a shady bastard, and registered ammo was introduced. I wouldn't use what I have, and would practice with only registered new ammo. (It would also create black market for ammo)
We can't even keep people from carrying around the wrong kind of vegetation in their pockets, I can't think of a way to make this work.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)if they used it up and had to use the new stuff.
If we really got serious about vegetation in the pockets, we could do something about that too. Corruption and the need for prisoners to work for free get in the way.
premium
(3,731 posts)It's people like you that poison the well with gun owners with your unreasonable, unworkable and just plain downright ridiculous proposals.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)Here's some other thoughts:
How about simply shooting and killing anyone at a crime scene in possession of a gun of any kind? That might discourage folks a bit. No arrest, no trial, just elimination.
How about simply shooting and killing anyone in possession of an illegal weapon of any sort, guns, bombs, precursors, brass knuckles, switchblades, you name it. Again, no arrest, no trial, simple elimination.
How about the simple elimination of those denounced by a neighbor, friend, acquaintance or family member as having possessed an illegal weapon in the past, without another shred of evidence?
See? Those are the proposals that seem somewhat over the top. I'll stand by my other completely reasonable proposals, most of which apply to automobile ownership already.
It's hard because the gunmakers pour enough money into politicians' pockets to make it hard - reasonable has not got a thing to do with it.
premium
(3,731 posts)What you propose will never happen and I think you know that, all you're doing is throwing out flamebait to start arguments.
Have a good life.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It has solved ONE crime in MA, despite millions in spending, and hundreds of thousands of barrels registered. It only worked in that one case, because the guy that used the gun in the crime, bought it, and immediately used it post-fingerprinting.
If he'd taken it to the range, and fired it, then cleaned it, it would have failed to match.
(They would have caught him anyway)
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)money. Not me.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There is no reason to think that crime would have gone unsolved. The BF was just one of many pieces that led to the suspect.
Is it a better use of funds than say, the F-35 JSF? Perhaps. (Though, the JSF works better than ballistic fingerprinting, as badly as it works) But funding isn't allocated that way.
If there was a reason to think the crime would have gone unsolved, I would then tend to agree with you, as catching the shooter may well have saved other lives in the future.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)Ran out of whale oil, burn kerosene. Kerosene dangerous, turn on the lights. Nuclear bad, spin the wind generators.
Change is essential, and nothing is fixed. It's a big planet, and people need to use their brains to get what we want.
Every time I hear "shared sacrifice" (not what you're saying) I want to throw up.
Share the plenty. As one instance, hunger is political in today's world. Period.
Need more? We'll get it.
BobbyBoring
(1,965 posts)But not when you're dealing with unreasonable people.
I blame the NRA for some of the extreme measures like banning entire classes. The NRA has railed against any and every reasonable idea so far.
TnDem
(538 posts)One more time.....The Devil is ALWAYS in the details...
Senators Schumer and Feinstein did not simply want background checks, but they wanted registration as well...Read the bill.
Also, if they simply wanted universal background checks, then they could issue and fund every US Citizen a "felony free ID Card"...Once this was issued, all a person would have to do to make sure that the buyer was legit was to ask for his/her card.
No paperwork, no nosy neighbors, no problem with others knowing what you are doing...Just the buyer and seller making sure that each are qualified to do so..
However, this was proposed quietly and was immediately shot down by Senator Schumer...Why? Because background checks was not what he really wanted...What he really wanted was a start-up database for all guns.
Watch this below 1 minute clip:
jmg257
(11,996 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Second Amendment.
If you looked at the same infographic in the op, but for 1970, you'd shit your pants if you think todays numbers are bad.
(I mean, of course they are bad, ONE kid is bad, but there's bad, and then there's HOLY SHIT bad.)
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)Let's do more.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)People seem to remember the second part of the 2nd amendment, but not the first part.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)And learn what "well regulated" really means
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)It provides a well-regulated militia as a justification for protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms. it doesn't limit that right to said militia, which would require different language.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)It is infernal. It is an embarrassment for the U.S. among other modern democracies. It is an atrocity. It brings shame, and rightly so, to our country. We cannot call ourselves civilized until we have rid ourselves of this monstrosity.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)always works great to help your cause
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)way by this SCOTUS. We could do better. We have the example of Norway where hunters and sport shooters have their gun and their society has safety. They have had ONE incidence of mass shootings (and the shooter had to go to great lengths and other countries to obtain the guns). We have them regularly. It IS possible for hunters and sport shooters to co-exist in civilized society with sensible gun safety regulations in place.
If that is name calling, well...
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I have a lot more respect for your position.
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)Citizens with guns are required to have fully functional gun safes and the local police may come to the home of gun owners to inspect the gun safes. And Norway has not become a totalitarian state as a result. If anything, the Norwegians were fierce in their resistance to Nazi tyranny, but their experience led them to more gun safety laws, not less. And they have largely been successful in their efforts.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I live alone and have my weapons secured in a gun safe and have had training. So I already do that to a point.
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)regulates guns. It seems that there are many Americans, some of them here, who do not know about the Norwegian experience and how successful it has been.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)country with a very different culture and fewer weapons to start with.
CTyankee
(63,903 posts)But it is precisely their "gun culture" that I am talking about. Their desire to have guns to hunt and sport shoot, what Americans have a problem with that? Their hatred and fierce resistance to actual tyranny that they experienced in the 20th century?
We often hear the arguments on both these "cultural ideas." That of peaceful, law abiding citizens using guns in a peaceful, law abiding way. And we also hear about the threat and resistance to tyranny. So who better to reference than Norway?
JesterCS
(1,827 posts)My grandma had them. I can see why they are so dangerous, at least today. Kids are more prone to do stupid things then they were back in the 80s and 90s. At least from my perspective lol.
Botany
(70,498 posts)sharp objects you can throw and stick into things ...
and 11 to 13 year old boys .... what could go wrong? We found an old barn that was a great target.
BTW not long after that we found Winchester .22 pump rifles w/ 8 power scopes 
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)When I see kids do crazy things and think about it, they are no crazier than I growing up. How I reached adulthood is beyond me.
Rex
(65,616 posts)All that means is that the lawn dart corporations did not have powerful lobby groups and special interest groups in Congress buying Senators left and right.
KG
(28,751 posts)
marble falls
(57,078 posts)Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of unintentional deaths to children. In the United States in 2000, 6,466 children (0-18) were killed in motor vehicle crashes. This includes all deaths occurring to children who are drivers, passengers, pedestrians or other types of occupants in a form of transport.
Children Under 16
Proper child restraints are the key to preventing fatalities to children under 16 when riding in a motor vehicle. When properly installed in passenger cars, child safety seats reduce fatal injury by 71% for children under age one, and by 54% for toddlers ages 1-4. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), among children younger than five, an estimated 3,894 lives were saved by child restraints from 1975-1997.
Want to save the children? Do something about cars.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It's an issue of costs versus benefits.
marble falls
(57,078 posts)traffic deaths, paving over of the US, pollution, debt ......... Some of the benefits. Cars kill without even coming into contact with the victims. If you can live with the benefits of me driving a 500hp piece of Detroit iron in convenience and trading it off on the cost of some kids life somewhere else, I guess its OK!
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Comparing cars to guns is silly. Without cars, society would grind to a halt instantly. Without guns, nothing much would change except that a lot of people would not be killed every year.
marble falls
(57,078 posts)Not very effective control. Some trade off. Gun deaths pale next to it.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You keep ignoring the fact that cars provide immense benefits and guns do not. That's because you don't have an answer.
Again, without cars, society would grind to a halt. What great benefit do guns provide that are worth tolerating about the same number of deaths?
Let's see if you can answer this time...
marble falls
(57,078 posts)From the Law Center to Prevent Gun Deaths:
In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.1
73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.2
Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.3
Nat’l Ctr. for Injury Prevention & Control, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Web-Based Injury Statistics Query & Reporting System (WISQARS) Injury Mortality Reports, 1999-2010, for National, Regional, and States (Dec. 2012), http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/dataRestriction_inj.html (hereinafter WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, 1999-2010. Note: Users must agree to data use restrictions on the CDC site prior to accessing data). [↩]
Nat’l Ctr. for Injury Prevention & Control, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Web-Based Injury Statistics Query & Reporting System (WISQARS) Nonfatal Injury Reports, at http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html (last visited Nov. 20, 2012) (hereinafter WISQARS Nonfatal Injury Reports). [↩]
Nat’l Ctr. for Injury Prevention and Control, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Web-Based Injury Statistics Query & Reporting System (WISQARS) Leading Causes of Death Reports, 1999-2010, for National, Regional, and States (RESTRICTED), at http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leading_causes_death.html (last visited Nov. 30, 2012). [↩]
Don't get me wrong. I want a national gun ownership registry with mandatory registration of all firearms with background checks everytime a weapon is registered. But lets get the emotional BS out of the equation, please. Gun violence is down 40% or so over the last 20 years so lets get an argument based in facts and have a sensible, fact and truth based discussion.
Robb
(39,665 posts)...the least likely bit of gun safety legislation on the planet, along with the most watered-down bit.
Don't get me wrong, but that's less than convincing. That plus the insistence on sociopathy as prerequisite for decision-making suggests you've got a big fat fucking agenda.
marble falls
(57,078 posts)every single gun transfer. How is that watered down?????? I'd like to see any male involved in a separation, divorce, child custody battle unarmed. I say any person who arms himself purely for self defense and isn't a cop or legitimately in security is a fool and is dangerous to the rest of us. I think Concealed Carry is stupidly dangerous to the rest of us. Watered down? I think not.
I think you are arguing your points to the emotions. At least acknowledge the facts: gun violence is way down in the last 20 years, gun violence is the third (by a large factor) cause of death to kids - after poisoning and auto accidents, that there's about as many guns as there are cars in US society - and go from there.
Why do you think slamming me is more important than accepting the facts and honing your argument to them? It certainly isn't because firearms are the only or even largest cause of death to children.
Another thing I'd do if I was made gun czar - no internet sales, all private sales made through a federally licensed gun dealer, like I had to do back in the 80's when I sold my AR-15 to a friend who lvedin the same town as me.
Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)university.
Most car crashes are ACCIDENTS. Key word. . .ACCIDENT!
Damn, I am so sick of "progressives" spouting this NRA crap.
marble falls
(57,078 posts)And would point out gun accidents are accidents, too. Texting while driving is an accident? Drunk driving is an accident? Road rage incidents are accidents? Drag racing is an accident? Speeding and reckless driving are accidents?
I am sick and tired that all we offer gun nuts is an appeal to emotions based on false assumptions.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And on top of that beautiful piece of desperate absurdity, you're still dodging the question. What benefits do we get from guns that are worth the 30,000 deaths a year?
Why are you dodging? It's a straightforward question. It's not "emotional BS", it's a question about costs and benefits.
marble falls
(57,078 posts)More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009.2
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/
73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.2
Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.3
http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/
Do you think 2.3 million is close enough to 73,000?
What's all this indignation about?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)What do we gain from guns that is worth the 30,000 deaths, plus the injuries, and the trauma.
Is this really so hard?
I'm starting to think that you actually can't answer.
marble falls
(57,078 posts)Dead kids are acceptable trade off for the convenience someone being able to drive one block to the DQ.
My personal opinion is that anybody who leaves a firearm loaded or unloaded where a kid can grab it should be in jail. That would just about eliminate the accidental shooting of children under 14.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)There's nothing less emotional than a cost-benefit analysis. You like to downplay the harms of guns, but when it comes to benefits, all you do is dodge the question. And you are starting to look pretty foolish.
Without cars, society would grind to a halt, and the economy would collapse, sinking millions of people into poverty and starvation. It has nothing to do with the convenience of driving one block to DQ. If you don't understand how fundamental motor vehicles are to our society, I really can't help you.
So again, what comparable benefits do guns provide?
Here's my prediction: you're going to dodge again, because you simply can't answer. You see, the last thing that gun nuts want is an actual non-emotional cost-benefit analysis. You want to make idiotic comparisons to cars or whatever else, because at the end of the day, even NRAers like you know that guns provide barely any benefits at all.
marble falls
(57,078 posts)of a petroleum based form of transportation that puts 2.5 million people a year into hospitals and morgues and even if I did, I wouldn't be crowing about the convenience of it for me to be worth 1000's of dead kids every year, way more than gun violence kills or wounds. And we aren't talking about the corollary deaths in the transportation of oil or its production and pollution every step of the way.
Convenience sounds like the talking points of Big Oil and we all know what wonderful people they are.
Why aren't very many of the adults who were responsible for the firearm and its being in the hands of children jailed?
I believe in gun control. I believe in keeping them out of the hands of children. I also believe in gun ownership. And I believe in at least a safe gun handling course prior to ownership and believe it should also be offered as a course in public schools.
There are 7 or 8 guns for for ever 10 citizens. No way will there an involuntary gun gathering up. At the same time rate gun ownership has been dropping years. I'd be surprised if it ever increases to the levels of the fifties.
And that's OK with me.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You're trying to change the topic because you know that you are losing the argument. What are the benefits of guns to society, that balance out the 30,000 annual deaths?
Cars have their harms, nobody is denying that, but they also have benefits, like being able to get people to work and transport food to people so they don't starve. Society can't function without cars. Society can function just fine without guns.
Still waiting for you to list the comparable benefits of guns! But keep on dodging! You look more foolish each time you do!
marble falls
(57,078 posts)and debaters. They are all arguing somewhere south of the facts. Crime is down, gun ownership of guns is down. I'm sick of the lot of them all.
I am disgusted it is all right to carry a loaded assault rifle in the parking lot of the venue where the President is, legally or not. I am disgusted that Wayne LaPierre's son was arrested waving a firearm at road rage incident (disarm the simple ass permanently). I am sick and tired of people giving mentally challenged children serious, serious firearms that end up shooting other kids
But in Niall Ferguson’s The Ascent of Money he cites the following statistics in chronicling the rise of the modern insurance business: the odds of the average American dying by gun shot are 1 in 314. That’s much higher than the odds that one will die in a fire (1 in 1,358) or die by natural disaster (1 in 3,288). By the way, the ‘death by gun shot’ statistic does not include suicide. The odds of dying by one’s own hand are even higher at 1 in 119. One is even more likely to die in a road accident (1 in 78) and most likely to die of cancer (1 in 5). The point of all this is not to be morbid. Rather, it’s a nice illustration of how bad we are at making choices about what is the most dangerous and what's not.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)All I'm asking for is a cold non-emotional cost-benefit analysis. What are the benefits of guns?
I'm dealing with the facts. The costs of guns are well-documented. I'm asking you to document the benefits, so that we can weigh them against the harms. Why is this so confusing?
marble falls
(57,078 posts)This isn't about the benefits of either cars or guns. Its all about the kids, remember? And what's killing them and the CDC thinks cars and poison are killing a lot more of them than guns.
So would spelling matter as much if we were texting this?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)What are the benefits? Of course it's about the benefits! Cost benefit analysis. Please tell me this is not a completely foreign concept to you. My opinion of the NRA trolls is already pretty low, but you're plumbing the depths with this refusal to answer a simple question...
It's not only about the kids, it's about the kids, and also the adults. And it's also about the benefits. If only you would list the benefits, so we could weight them against the costs.
Why all the dodging?
marble falls
(57,078 posts)Response to marble falls (Reply #144)
Post removed
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)Well, dishonesty runs rampant in those who feel the need to win by force....
marble falls
(57,078 posts)and besides, whats with the insults? I believe in a gun control system that stops short of an outright ban. My issue is the appeal to emotions with an incomplete look at the facts of death/injury rates to children. The fact is according to the CDC that cars and poisons each kill and injure more kids than guns do. That a major issue in gun death/injury of kids is guns that belong to adults that kids find and 'play' with. Hardly a design issue with the gun.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)The thread began with deaths and continued until you threw in injuries as if that was what we were talking about all along.
Doesn't matter. Have a nice day. I'm going to the cemetery to visit my mother.
mainer
(12,022 posts)How many of us could say the same about cars and trucks?
Without guns, we'd have ... well, no guns.
Without cars and trucks, we'd have ... just try to imagine a world without long-distance trucks, mail service, trips to the grocery stores (oh, wait -- there'd BE NO grocery stores). Imagine a world where everyone was back to riding horses.
premium
(3,731 posts)I have a P/U truck when I have to buy things like hay, feed, groceries, but for the little stuff, we'll ride our horses into town, we're doing our part to combat climate change, and, it's so much more relaxing to ride our horses.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)Well said.
patrice
(47,992 posts)
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)You might not care about me being able to defend myself and my home, but I do.
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)There is a much greater probability that someone in your home will be injured by your guns.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)other than to use to kill.
You have no point that would make sense to anyone other than gun nuts. Get it. There is nothing to argue about here.
Our society could not exist without cars. It can easily exist without privately owned guns or the gun nuts that worship them.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Self-defense is a valid purpose.
domestic violence protective orders against him at the time of his death,
he got into a violent confrontation with his daughter's boyfriend.
The police, based upon their investigation, determined that the boyfriend lawfully engaged in self-defense.
http://www.shelbystar.com/news/local/shooting-death-ruled-self-defense-1.140253
There are those who deny it, but it appears that some legitimately believe that
firearms can be owned and used for self-defense.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022833399
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)That is not a legitimate reason in a developed and supposedly civilized country. Anyway a justification is not the same as necessity. Cars are a necessity for many people and are used on a daily basis to commute to work, to shop, to travel to medical appointments, etc..
That is one of the most intentionally ignorant talking points of the gun industry. There is and can be no valid comparison between a necessary mode of transportation and a device designed to kill.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)mbperrin
(7,672 posts)one in the house.
Pretty much says it all.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)The correct quote is: If someone is shot and killed with your gun in your house (including suicides), the "victim" is 43 times more likely to be a family member than a criminal. (6x if not including suicides.) The study does not address "victims" not shot nor shot but live.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)Okay.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)mbperrin
(7,672 posts)than not.
Unless you are just making it up.
That's what you said it says.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)What I said, and what the study said, was that anyone "shot and killed" in the house is 43x more likely to be a family member (6x without suicides) than an intruder.
The study purposely excluded all data about "victims" who were shot and lived.
The study purposely excluded all data about "victims" who were threatened with a gun but not shot.
The vast majority of people shot with handguns survive.
Proper storage of your guns prevents many "accidents" as does proper target identification during emergencies.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)than an intruder.
Not worried about injuries - people get over those. Death - not so much.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)According to the study, if a person is killed in your home (low probability event) via a gun, then the dead person is more likely to be a family member than an intruder. This is not the same as saying "if you have a gun in the home...."
It is all about risk management. Keep your guns properly stored. Follow Cooper's Four Rules of firearms safety.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)For them, not for those that can and do, for them we need to keep them out of their hands.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)With them, it's not even a weak point.
The benefits of owning guns does not include being safer.
It does not include making others safer.
It does not include providing any necessary private purpose.
There is no way to logically equate guns with cars.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)It is somewhat puzzling to encounter anyone who believes that name calling will accomplish anything.
Good luck to you.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)And it has resulted in a drastic decrease in traffic fatalities since the 1970's. Did it end all traffic deaths? No. But just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean we should sit on our thumbs.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Those pesky deaths attributed to cars are A OK.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)With cars there are large costs -- accidents, pollution, etc. -- along with huge benefits -- transportation, shipping, etc.
With guns there are large costs, but very minor benefits.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Why do you hate children so much?
Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)First you have to take a safety and licensing test than renew that license every few years. Second you have to carry insurance and have an inspection and certification of the vehicle every year. To your point of driving 500mph there are speed limits and I don't think I've been on the road in the us that goes above 75 I could be wrong on that. As far as pollution we are constantly enacting higher pollution control standards.
marble falls
(57,078 posts)There are about as many guns out there as cars and they kill or injure around 75,000 a year.
Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)America as cars
marble falls
(57,078 posts)You used the word liar. Not "misinformed" or even "wrong", but "liar".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Do the math: 75% of 331,000,000 = 230,000,000 guns
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tra_mot_veh-transportation-motor-vehicles
765 motor vehicles per 100 people.
Maybe a little apology over your choice of words?
Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)You to think I was calling you a liar nuances can be lost on the Internet. So again I apologize for my wording. As far as your graph goes it's very informative as to the numbers I'm curious as to how they came to these statistics cause I can't imagine there's a definitive way to figure either. I still might give a slight edge to cars as far as numbers just because they're more ubiquitous in out culture than guns but that's just my personal feeling not backed by numbers just observation of the world.
marble falls
(57,078 posts)that there are criminal and more criminals everyday so arm up and buy gold. Gun banners do the same, saying theres armed gun nuts everywhere waiting to shoot junior.
Gun violence is down 39% over the last 20 years. All violence and crime is down. Gun ownership is down over the last forty years. Yet more than half this country believe its higher and more violent than ever.
We need to get the discussion away from assumption and knee jerk scare tactics. And move to the fact that there is responsible gun ownership and that we need to regulate it to keep it that way.
Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)I have a few friends who have guns. My only point on gun control is there's no way to ban guns in America but there are certain responsible things we can do to help better have a handle on things. A national database, insurance, licensing renewal every few years that includes a safety test. Closing the private sale/gun show loopholes. As well as having a mental health database to compare gun buyers identities to.
marble falls
(57,078 posts)I was against any sort of gun control until recently. Aurora and Sandy Hook have changed my mind. Also, all the "second amendment recourse" talk from Sara Palin brought a lot of nut cases out of the woodwork. Funny how its conservative nuts that are shooting children, women's health clinics, churches etc. They can not handle their 2nd amendment rights so society needs to regulate their guns.
I can handle the control to own my firearms if it cuts down on the gun violence even more.
TnDem
(538 posts)Remember the most famous two quotes from the most famous two progressives/thinkers in US History...Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".
Benjamin Franklin
and:
"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Thomas Jefferson
premium
(3,731 posts)are between 250-300 million, not sure about how many vehicles, but if you're counting junkyards, collectors, trucking companies, etc,. then certainly there are much more vehicles than firearms.
marble falls
(57,078 posts)Last edited Sat May 11, 2013, 02:26 PM - Edit history (1)
get used to it, accept it and move on or we will never ever have an effective gun control regime in this country.
We need to get this issue out of the hands of irrational extremists on both sides. The issue isn't no guns vs two assault rifles in the garage and a pistol in every pot. The goal is a safe and sane gun ownership moderated by tight gun control. All gun transaction from or through a federally licensed dealer, no internet sales, a background check on all transactions, there are all sorts of good sense measures that make sense without calling up dead kids.
premium
(3,731 posts)if you count all vehicles in the nation, not just those that are road worthy, then, certainly, vehicles outnumber firearms, also, I'll dispute your assertion that there are fewer gun owners in the nation, the reason for the lower numbers may very well be that lawful owners won't admit to some anonymous poll taker that they own firearms, I know I wouldn't tell someone on the phone/internet poll whether or not I own firearms.
As far as your idea of a national registry, that's a no go with me, it's none of the govt. business whether or not I own firearms, and, no, I'm not worried about confiscation, that will never happen, I just don't think the govt., whether Fed., State, or Local, has any right to know what I own as far as firearms are concerned, and I lucky that I live in a state where registration is not required except in one county and that's about to go away.
marble falls
(57,078 posts)Share of Homes With Guns Shows 4-Decade Decline
The share of American households with guns has declined over the past four decades, a national survey shows, with some of the most surprising drops in the South and the Western mountain states, where guns are deeply embedded in the culture.
The gun ownership rate has fallen across a broad cross section of households since the early 1970s, according to data from the General Social Survey, a public opinion survey conducted every two years that asks a sample of American adults if they have guns at home, among other questions.
The rate has dropped in cities large and small, in suburbs and rural areas and in all regions of the country. It has fallen among households with children, and among those without. It has declined for households that say they are very happy, and for those that say they are not. It is down among churchgoers and those who never sit in pews.
The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s, according to the survey data, analyzed by The New York Times.
In 2012, the share of American households with guns was 34 percent, according to survey results released on Thursday. Researchers said the difference compared with 2010, when the rate was 32 percent, was not statistically significant.
As for whether it is Uncle Sam's right to know what we own gun-wise. I agreed with you until Aurora and Sandy Hook. Too many folks are armed who should not be, and I want them disarmed or at least the biggest majority of them. The times have changed. And I needed to change with them and I want to continue owning my firearm.
We let Uncle know what we own and earn, why not let him in on our guns
premium
(3,731 posts)with firearms, you can't prove that there are fewer households with firearms, and I can't prove that the stats are because of fewer people willing to admit to owning firearms.
And I will always disagree with a national registry, just my opinion, but I do agree that all firearms transactions need to go through an FFL dealer, a mag. capacity limit modeled on CO. law, stricter enforcement of straw purchase, better reporting by states to NICS of prohibited persons and better health care funding.
marble falls
(57,078 posts)folks who think marching in DC with load weapons is such a great idea. I bet a large portion of them have all sorts of flags in their past that suggest they should not be allowed to own.
premium
(3,731 posts)these idiots think they're standing up for gun rights? All they're doing is proving that some people shouldn't own firearms. I really hope these asshats call this off.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)premium
(3,731 posts)that are 80+ mph also. In Nevada, on I-15 north, once you get outside of Las Vegas, the limit jumps to 75 mph.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)stretch of highway of 85. All are being re-evaluated right now because of the fantastic increase in deaths on those roads.
airplaneman
(1,239 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)directly due to the use of vehicles.
There are 1,225 kids under 14 killed per year in car accidents, which means that there are still 1,225 little dead kids that died in preventable ways.
Per the CDC:
Age <1----->76
Age 1-4---->343
Age 5-9---->354
Age 10-14-->452
Would you support a nationwide effort to mechanically or electronically limit all cars in the US to 20 mph, with harsh penalties for people that bypass the governors?
Think of the benefits... with cars limited to 20mph, they could be a lot lighter, saving millions of tons of steel and other metals a year.
All-electric cars would become a viable and popular option; no more fossil fuels needed, because most people would do just fine with a 3-4 hour range on their vehicle.
High-speed public transit would become immensely popular because people could no longer effectively drive more than a few dozen miles.
US carbon dioxide production would drop significantly, fighting the global warming that kills hundreds of thousands of people a year, many of them children.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)If they disagree, it must be an NRA talking point. I'd like to see the official NRA talking point list one day.
I'll post the jury results when they come back.
I like your idea, though I'd hate to go 20mph. How about 45?
Everything you say is true, the drag on a car quadruples with the doubling of speed, so indeed EV ranges would increase and MPG would improve for ICE cars.
This would really encourage high speed and regular public transport, and help our climate change situation.
Plus, our culture is too much in a big fucking rush and we need to slow down!
Robb
(39,665 posts)Tell us more about your awesome guns. Have you bought more since Sandy Hook? 
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)You'd know that my Mossberg 500 post was a challenge to the admins and their wisdom or lack thereof in allowing guns into GD.
Of course, some folks who know this fact chose to disregard it so that they can be the tough guy, or girl, on the Internet.
So you can drop your awesome pretense of attacking a gunner, because I'm not what you think you are.
How disappointing. I thought you were wiser and capable of respecting multiple points of view.
ciao.
Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)You gun nuts are amazing. How many people need to die and be killed by these things before you people supposed gun control?
God forbid someone if your family is a victim of gun violence. I'm sure your love affair with the NRA will end and you will join sensible people that want to prevent more death.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)your undying support of the RKBA will change.
If it does not, you love your gun more. . .and that is sad.
premium
(3,731 posts)and guess what? I didn't blame the tool, I blame the POS thug that killed my cousin, and the revolving door justice system that let this worthless waste of oxygen out of prison despite a rap sheet longer than my arm.
My cousin could just have easily been murdered with a knife, tire iron, baseball bat, it's not the tool, it's the person wielding the tool.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)That load of bullshit again. I'm not blaming the gun and I'm blaming the system that allows easy access to them, get it?
A gun is a tool designed to KILL
A wrench is a tool designed to turn nut and bolts
See the difference?
premium
(3,731 posts)It is just a tool, that waste of oxygen could just have easily killed him with a hammer, a heavy wrench, a screwdriver, get it?
It doesn't matter what the weapon used was designed for, it's how it was used.
The only consolation we got was that this worthless POS will never see the outside of a prison again for the rest of his miserable fucking life.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)How many mass murders have there been with hammers, wrenches, screwdrivers, etc? Its a lot easier to kill a lot of people fast with a semi-automatic rifle and 25 round magazine than it is to bludgeon a crowd of people with a hammer.
Your argument is nonsense. It doesn't hold up and the only purpose it serves is to comfort you and make you feel better about your weird perverted love affair with guns.
premium
(3,731 posts)I really don't care what you think, not important to me.
BTW, I don't have a perverted love affair with guns, I only own 2 and I haven't fired either in over 10 years, but you seem to want to throw insults, so have a nice life.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)Is one person more dead than another?
Robb
(39,665 posts)Your synopsis of what you posted days after Newtown is, generously, misleading.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)There wasn't a violation in my reply, certainly not one worthy of a tombstone.
Skinner asked kindly if I would remove it and I did.
You see, he was paying attention and you were not.
I stand by my synopsis, you don't have to accept it.
If you like, you can instead chose to be among the handful who prefer the hatred and animosity directed toward people who don't share the hatred of all things guns.
I'm comfortable in my ability to accept your point of view without the need to express it with venom and insult.
Cheers, hope for better times.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Sleep well. 
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)you should have been banned not necessarily for posting it, but because you posted it to taunt people on DU upset over the Newtown shootings of which you couldn't muster as much sympathy for as you could for the non-living object called the "gun".
krispos42
(49,445 posts)I never clear it; it's useful to have. I'm assuming that is when I installed FireFox.
Anyway, I did a search for sites I've visited that belong to the NRA (nra.org; nraila.org)
December 9th, 2012
December 13th, 2012
Looks like I was looking up California's gun laws.
I doubt this will prove anything to anybody, though.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)But there are still thousands of dead kids per year
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2828925
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
NRA propaganda 101.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat May 11, 2013, 10:49 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: To the alerter. Give up your talking point, not everything you disagree with is an NRA talking point.
No action on this reply, let it be.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: hate censorship of ANY kind, so leave it...
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Oh, and, I am now "Shotgun Skip".
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It would sink millions into poverty, and cause more deaths than it prevents. Anyone but the most hardened gun nuts, if given the choice between no gun and no driving over 20mph, would choose no gun in an instant.
Still waiting for someone to point out what benefits guns provide in order to compensate for all the deaths the cause.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)The present economic model that requires constant growth and expansion isn't sustainable anyway.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Again, compare the effects of limiting the speed limit to 20mph versus the negative effects of getting rid of guns. It's not even close.
sarisataka
(18,612 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Worse than the financial crisis. Millions of people would lose their jobs, and with it their health insurance. Millions would sink into poverty. Deaths from disease, starvation, suicide, and violence would go way up.
People actually do cost-benefit analyses of car speed limits, but nobody in their right mind has suggested 20mph because of the drastic impact it would have.
sarisataka
(18,612 posts)though since so much is electronic I question the overall effect. People would have to leave earlier to go to work. Goods would need to be shipped more efficiently as in by train. It seems like it would be unpleasant but we could adapt.
Disease- why? I fail to see any connection between the means to travel and the spread of disease except in enhancing the spread. Slower travel should slow the spread disease
Starvation- there are no hi-speed tractors. Most farm supplies are delivered by rail then locally by road. The food supply uses it in the reverse to a lesser degree. Leveraging that infrastructure would enable food to move from farm to market.
Suicide- I would seriously dislike travelling at 20 mph but it would not make me suicidal. As society adapts it would reduce the short term pressure. The exception being oil company executives.
Violence- I would expect a short term spike in road rage due to frustration at change but that too would recede as the new becomes normal
20 mph may be extreme but we can ask the question now, why do we have cars that can exceed twice the highest posted speed limit in the country? Would there not be a measurable benefit to require cars governed to 80 mph or less?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Please be serious.
As to the question of why there are cars that can go 150mph, that is valid. But then we have to weigh the costs and benefits associated with that. Very few accidents are caused by people actually doing 150mph on roads, so the costs are very low. Of course the benefits aren't very high either -- some people like racing their cars at such speeds on private tracks. Still, all in all, cars that can go 150mph aren't a big problem.
sarisataka
(18,612 posts)if not THE major factor in road fatalities. There is virtually no benefit to having a vehicle that can go far over the limit but the deaths are a major cost, especially to the families.
If we wanted to invest the money we could retrofit GPS technology to cars that would electronically limit the speed to no more than 110% the speed limit of the road you are currently driving on. The cost/benefit ratio would be immense in accident reduction, lives saved...
I kept on with 20 mph as a debate point. I agree it is unnecessarily extreme.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The faster you are going the more likely it is that an accident is the result in death.
There have been cost-benefit analyses about speed limits, where the take into account on one hand the time savings and economic benefits of faster transportation and shipping, and on the other hand the increased traffic deaths, as well as less fuel efficiency. I'm sure there are arguments to be made either way, but the point is that we do, in fact, approach car speed from a rational cost-benefit perspective.
But back to where we started, it is more or less impossible to argue that our gun policy is remotely appropriate in terms of balancing the costs and benefits of guns to society. Yes, there are benefits to guns -- recreation, hunting, self-defense -- but under the current regime of gun laws the costs are larger by orders of magnitude.
sarisataka
(18,612 posts)regarding firearms. The reasons are many, social, political and intimidation.
Personally I have lost far more family and friends to preventable vehicle death than firearms. I do agree that we can do better re:firearms. It may be impossible to make child death from firearms = zero but that should most certainly be our goal.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)For example, in setting speed limits, you have to somehow place a value on statistical loss of life. Social scientists actually do this. Not just for cars, but also for other environmental and safety standards. It sounds callous, but it is necessary, and it generally comes out to about $5M to $10M per statistical life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life
My general point is that, with cars, we can argue about how much the gas tax should be, or what the speed limits should be, or what the maximum blood alcohol level should be, but at least we're doing this in a rational cost-benefit setting. We lose 30,000 lives a year to car accidents, but what we get in return is also huge -- cars are enormously useful, and are very essential to our functioning society.
With guns, we're nowhere close to a rational cost/benefit analysis. We lose 30,000 lives a year there too, and get very little in return.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)10 miles an hours is a good number to set the limit. Nobody needs to go over 10.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)We're never going to have "no guns", we're never going to have a 20mph speed limit, and we're never NOT going to have kids killed in accidents.
We would save far more lives outlawing bathtubs and swimming pools. To anybody but the most ardent swimmer, if given the choice between unnecessary standing pools of water and no guns, would pick "no pools" in an instant.
I'm just pointing out that you accept 1,225 deaths child deaths a year for economic reasons, yet for 62 a year you are willing to do things that are extremely difficult and costly and not very effective.
On this Pareto chart, you're willing to potentially incur significant and chronic political losses, which directly prevent other progressive issues from being addressed and progressive ideas from being implemented, in order to address "tungsten inclusion"
Far more children die because of our health-insurance and health-care system's flaws ("shrink" than from gun accidents. The effort to save a portion of those 62 annual firearms deaths could instead go to save a couple of orders of magnitude, maybe more, of the children with better medical care.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Please, explain to us all what benefits guns provide to society that outweigh the 30,000 deaths plus all the injury and trauma.
C'mon, there's got to be at least one gun nut who's willing to give this a shot!
DanTex
(20,709 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)Don't you recognize this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
Maybe you forgot about these too...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Afghanistan-And-The-Future-U.S.-Withdrawal-Energy-Corridor-Or-Dead-Zone-.html
DanTex
(20,709 posts)That's not too surprising. None of your NRA buddies has an answer either.
30,000 deaths a year, for what benefit?
Crickets.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)to all of society.
Abortion does not help society and folks protest when they want to limit them in any way.
The COST to society is not because of guns - but like with every other thing what certain people do (or don't do) with them.
And those people are less than 0.2% of all gun owners. I can post a story everyday about a pitbull killing someone, or car accidents involving kids, etc and there will be people who think the only solution is to ban things or make new laws. The laws work over 99% of the time and most gun owners are responsible. But just like the right and muslims some here want to spread hate and fear of something they don't like so they cherry pick out the stories that back them up (probably because if you wrote 45 million stories a day about the rest of the gun owners it would be pretty boring).
And when people see bigotry and call it out they are called gun nuts, nra shrills, etc.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And the number of lives saved is nowhere close to the number of lives lost. In fact, statistically, the safety benefit associated with owning a gun is in fact negative.
So all in all, the costs hugely outweigh the benefits. But I'll give you credit for at least listing the benefits, rather than dodging the question like everyone else.
And, yes, this is actually about costs versus benefits.
Of course abortion has benefits to society! Are you kidding? It allows women to not go through pregnancy if they don't want to, or if their health is at risk, or for whatever reason. That's an enormous benefit!
Uzair
(241 posts)Yes, new laws will solve the problem. See: Every other country where they have worked.
Stop changing the subject. We're not talking about pit bulls or abortion or cars. And no, 99% of gun owners are NOT responsible. You pulled that number directly out of your ass. It's so easy to get a gun in America that any drooling dumb fuck can get one. And that's why so many children have died in the last few months. New laws would work. A repeal of the second amendment so that those news laws could actually be written would work.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)for not following your script. If you aren't very good at improv, I guess rigid framing is your only option. But in the future, be careful about those car analogies, they don't really work very well.
DanTex (3,711 posts)
7. [font color="red" size="4pt" face="face"]But cars also provide immense benefits to society. It's an issue of costs versus benefits.[/font]
----------------------------------------------------
Star Member rrneck (13,657 posts)
43. Okay, that's funny. nt
-----------------------------------------------------
DanTex (3,711 posts)
45. And yet, like the rest of the NRAers, you have no response.
View profile
Please, explain to us all what benefits guns provide to society that outweigh the 30,000 deaths plus all the injury and trauma.
C'mon, there's got to be at least one gun nut who's willing to give this a shot!
-----------------------------------------------------
Star Member rrneck (13,657 posts)
49. Okay...
http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/petro-politics-mixing-oil-and-war
----------------------------------------------------------
DanTex (3,711 posts)
51. Is that graph supposed to represent the benefits of guns to society?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Star Member rrneck (13,657 posts)
54. Are you sure you're on the right board?
View profile
Don't you recognize this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
Maybe you forgot about these too...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Afghanistan-And-The-Future-U.S.-Withdrawal-Energy-Corridor-Or-Dead-Zone-.html
------------------------------------------------------
DanTex (3,711 posts)
57. So you're going to dodge the question about the benefits of guns to society.
View profile
That's not too surprising. None of your NRA buddies has an answer either.
30,000 deaths a year, for what benefit?
Crickets.
--------------------------------------------------------
If you're going to play to the crowd make sure you know your role. The shining knight of ideological purity should sally forth with some gravitas, and not recognizing the "hockey stick" graph is a little rough on the image. Insults from the court jester are flattery. Take your bows and exit stage left while you still have some shred of dignity.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)so it's not worth even trying to make an argument.
You know that you would lose the argument, so you try to dodge and change the subject.
Very telling.
Ooooohhhh. Guess again, everybody else will be reading post #89.
Do regale us about how the benefits of cars far outweigh the costs to society.
These little sub threads make for fascinating little narratives, don't you think?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I hope everyone reads this thread, over and over, because it will become immensely clear that even a staunch defender of "gun rights" like yourself cannot even attempt to argue that the benefits of guns outweigh the harms.
Good times!
rrneck
(17,671 posts)And tell us again how cars are a boon to society. How many people are killed in accidents while making an unnecessary trip?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)For cars, the benefits are enormous -- transportation, shipping, etc. As I discussed with others less obtuse than you, cars are foundational for our society, and the economy wouldn't function without them.
But I'm still waiting for you to explain the benefits of guns. What do they provide that is worth all the death, injury and trauma?
I have a prediction: more dodging coming up from you. Because you don't have an answer. But you don't want to admit it. Easier to dodge, dodge, dodge.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)When it comes to cars and guns - there are benefits from cars. Mainly in the area of convenience for the avg citizen - but they also use them to go to bars, jobs that could be done from home, etc. I.E. they are overused for the pleasure of people and in doing so they have become a pain for many - injuries, deaths, etc. Many times at the hands of drunk drivers, people too tired to be driving, folks on meds, etc and so on.
Guns have long had a positive benefit in hunting. Back when people didn't rely on factory farms (which use a lot of trucks and fuel). When my dad was a kid he was in a gun club at school, they hunted or raised most of their food (rabbits, chickens, etc). Guns were more prevalent when he was younger and gun crimes and the 'cost to society' were negligible at best.
I don't want guns in the hands of idiots and criminals. 99% of people who legally own guns don't do a damn thing with them to harm others. Better enforcement of existing gun laws and funding for such. Fine by me. I don't own a gun but know a five time felon here who owns a black powder one (six shot) 44 cal pistol - and he can do so legally. He murdered one man (with his car - ran him over for killing his brother) and killed two others (for which he was not convicted, it was self defense and he didn't have a gun on him at the time either - but those two guys did, illegally, and he took the gun from one and shot them both).
He has sold drugs, stolen things, and even ran guns illegally (ie, he would transport and sell them to folks).
Out of all the people I know who own guns - from my dad (who has a ccw) to my sister and friends, he is the only one I would say who should not own one.
Everyone else I have known with guns have used them to hunt. Which saves them a ton of money from deer meat and such. They buy less at the store. My sister has several acres and a pond. They always have fish, deer meat, etc. They are pretty self reliant - and having guns has not hurt anyone (except some deer and squirrels).
If you live in the city - you probably don't 'need' a gun for hunting and food or sport shooting. though living in the hood like I do I often have wished I owned one (we get a lot of break ins around here).
Once more - a few. A tiny small percent - use their guns in negative ways. Those are the few we can focus on but it was not the guns but them and their mental state that led to misuse.
I don't need a nail gun myself. But can see a need for one once in awhile. I don't own a gun either, but can see the use for one.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)But would you agree that, on net, the costs to society of guns far outweigh the benefits? It seems clear to me. Yes, there are hunting and recreation benefits, as well as self-defense, but if you add those up they don't come close to the harms.
Do you also agree that the benefits of cars are much greater than the benefits of guns? This also seems obvious to me. Without cars, society would grind to a halt. That is why bringing up the fact that cars kill as many people as guns is irrelevant. Sure, cars kill some people, but cars also provide far, far greater benefits.
I agree that most gun owners don't kill anyone or do anything wrong with their guns. But the fraction of gun owners that do bad things is not the essential figure. The net cost benefit analysis is what matters. Even though only a small fraction of gun owners do damage, the amount of damage they do is large.
By the way, I'm not advocating a ban on all guns, because I think that would go to far in the other direction. I do think that having no guns at all would be better than the status quo, but I think there is a middle ground somewhere that is best of all. Certainly, something like registration of all handguns, which would reduce the harms while barely even affecting the benefits, should be a no-brainer.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)First off - registration of all handguns wouldn't do much. As the people who are criminals already or would use them in an illegal way won't register them. It reminds me of the whole watch list idea that didn't do anything to stop the Boston bombings. People think things are being done to make them safer but they really aren't doing much.
Do you also agree that the benefits of cars are much greater than the benefits of guns? This also seems obvious to me. Without cars, society would grind to a halt. That is why bringing up the fact that cars kill as many people as guns is irrelevant. Sure, cars kill some people, but cars also provide far, far greater benefits.
Cars have great benefits (but also a terrible downside on our climate and our lives overall). You don't personally see guns having any benefit, and I am not sure if you have ever owned one or not. My nephew and brother in law hunt a lot and it has been a great help to them financially and food wise. Their food is not all raised on farms, they don't need massive 18 wheelers to truck their food to stores, etc.
Back in the day my dad and his family got most of all their meat from hunting and raising animals - which left very little footprint on the environment. Right now we have about 15lbs of deer meat here that my nephew brought in from hunting. And that does not include what he has at his house from him and his dad hunting.
When you start to add that up over the population we have a lot less carbon footprint because of hunters (and people like me who fish). Instead of driving to movies and such, my sister and her kids go outside to shoot skeet and targets. Now, personally, I think they should reload, but they rarely do.
Everyone in my family who owns a gun has used their guns for hunting. All but one (my brother-in-law who owns the most guns) voted for Romney. Dave voted for Obama and said to give him a chance - the rest were worried about some democrat who wanted to take their guns from them (and they obviously did not read Obama's interview with field and stream).
I get it. I don't own a gun. I don't hunt. Have no desire to really. But I get why there are people in my family (and some are rw nut jobs) who won't vote for a dem because they fear democrats want to remove their right to own a gun. They have benefits from owning a gun. They enjoy it. The don't hurt others. But they get lumped in with those who use them in wrong ways (and they bristle when I bring all this up and talk about how they themselves do the same about muslims....which is why we don't talk politics much).
Some day, I hope, I will own some land in the country. And I will hunt and kill my own food (much as I do with fishing as I noted above). I won't need big trucks and stores utilizing a ton of energy from coal and gas. I will have the space to grow food, hunt it, fish for it (not to say I wouldn't still go to a store and buy things like milk and such - but won't need to be as dependent).
Guns can - and DO - serve a purpose that can help our society. They don't in the hands of some - and that is where we need to come together and discuss things like adults.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I disagree. The purpose of registration is to prevent criminals from getting hold of guns in the first place. Most guns used in crimes start out at an FFL, and then get diverted to the criminal market. That diversion would be much more difficult if all handguns are registered.
I don't own a gun, but I've been shooting, and I agree that it is fun. I have other hobbies, so it's not like I can't understand the benefits of an enjoyable activity that brings together friends, etc. I'm not saying there are no benefits, just that they are outweighed by the harms.
Also keep in mind that virtually all benefits from hunting would not be affected even if we were to take the extreme step of banning all handguns (or, really, even banning all handguns and semi-automatic rifles). Yes, I know, it is possible to hunt with a handgun, and some people do it, but that's a very small fraction. In fact, most home defense scenarios would also survive a handgun ban. So there's really a lot of room in the gun control direction that we can go while preserving the majority of benefits.
But, wanting to tightly regulate guns, or even wanting guns to be banned completely, is not the same thing as claiming that all gun owners are murders. I know that most gun owners are not murderers. I just think society would be better off if guns were much more tightly regulated. And for that I get called a "bigot".
I'm not sure how strong the environmental case is for hunting for food. You may have a lower carbon impact, but it requires a lot of land. I'm pretty sure that if all 300 million Americans tried to live by hunting, it would cause pretty massive ecological disruptions.
I agree. Again, I'm not saying there are zero benefits. Just that, at present, the harms outweigh the benefits. I believe this can change, and most of the benefits can be preserved while greatly reducing the harms. And the reason that I believe that the extremism and irrationality is mostly on the pro-gun side is because of the fact that the cost/benefit disparity is so large right now, and that none of the proposed changes to law would preclude more than a tiny fraction of the benefits of guns.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)The benefits of cars are indeed enormous. They are designed to solve a specific problem aren't they? They are made to move a human body, and the stuff a human body needs, from point A to point B.
When it comes to cars, there are obvious disadvantages which, to my mind, oughtweigh the benefits. They are changing the planet faster than the life on it can adapt. That's a thorny problem to solve. But we can do it, and you can bet the Republicans won't be any help. We can solve the mobility problem by building things like light rail lines, pedestrian friendly communities, and enhanced data connectivity. And of course, cars are frequently used too much or for the wrong reasons, that's why we need to educate people better and make them more aware of their responsibilities to others and to themselves and more importantly, to teach them to value something more than rank consumerism. These are all things that Democrats are particularly good at, and if we can get them done we will live in a better world. Do you know why? Because we will have actually done something to make people's lives better, and they will know it. Stuff will actually happen in what most people call the real world.
Guns are designed to solve a specific problem as well. Can you guess what it is? Killing (mostly) people. That's because there times in the course of human events when somebody for a multitude of reasons may want to do great harm to another, and the only way we can stop them is to kill them before they kill us. I know, it's sad and tragic, but it happens. Now if you really cared about "gun violence" you would produce a solution for the problem they are designed to solve. You can do that can't you? It's a tough one, I'll admit. There is no room for error. We aren't risking your solution making someone late for an appointment. Whatever you produce has to work as well as a gun because this is life or death in the blink of an eye. So what have you got?
Or do you prefer to cite a boatload of sexy sounding survey studies that simply mean you don't mind shooting craps with other people's lives by telling them that their chances are better without a gun than with one? Why don't you write some legislation titled "The Act to Hopefully, Maybe, Possibly Make Killers Somewhat Less Efficient". Yeah, that'll go over well come election day. But all those footnotes look great out on the catwalk when you are telling people just what they want to hear. It's a real show isn't it, strutting out your depth of understanding without having to connect it to any specific real world problem? Oh, baby, it looks good. You're just too sexy for our party.
I'm not denying the harms, pollution, accidents, etc. But I don't think you can honestly argue that the harms outweigh the benefits. Maybe in the future society won't be so dependent on cars, but at present, it would simply collapse without them. I'm in favor if a carbon tax, fuel emission standards, and so on. But none of that changes the fact that cars are essential to our world.
It is very difficult to deny that reducing gun availability would reduce the amount of murder and suicide. Guns make killing easier. If you make things harder, they happen less often. Most murders, at least in the US, are not committed by people that are hell-bent on killing. They are the result of escalating arguments or other crimes (e.g. robberies) that get out of control. In both of these scenarios the presence of a gun greatly increases the chance someone will be killed. Also, for suicides, most suicidal impulses are short-lived and having a gun around often means the difference between a completed suicide and survived suicide attempt, or a suicidal impulse that is not acted upon. For some reason you don't like studies (although you don't seem to have a problem with climate science, thankfully), but what I'm saying is backed by research.
The anti-intellectualism here doesn't really help your argument. Guns take more lives than they save. By a substantial factor. On top of this is the fact that none of the proposed gun control laws, including things like universal handgun registration which is not even on the table, would do nothing to prevent self-defense gun scenarios.
I do agree that politically, gun control is a tough sell in America. But I'm talking about cost and benefits, not about politics. Reducing carbon emissions is also politically a tough sell, for the same reasons that you use to mock the case for gun control. The benefits -- preventing climate change and reducing gun violence, can seem abstract, diffuse, and uncertain. The hope is that there are enough people that are capable of being rational about these issues. Given the state of politics and ignorance in the US, that might be too much to ask.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Do you have a self defense solution for the disparity of force between an attacker and a defender that does not involve the use of a gun? Or do you plan to blather on about the "odds" again? It's easy to tout "costs and benefits" when you won't be called to account for the failure of your policies. Solve the problem.
I love the way you hide in accusations of "anti intellectualism" after I asserted the value of education. Nice try. What you're really doing is wrapping yourself in a sort of faux intellectualism to avoid dealing with the problem.
Do you have a self defense solution for the disparity of force between an attacker and a defender that does not involve the use of a gun? Do you have a solution, or are you going to make another turn on the catwalk?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You have some gut feeling that owning a gun makes people safer from attacks. Based on this, you are trying to paint me as trying to prevent people from defending themselves, thereby leaving them at risk in a dangerous world. This, despite the fact that I've repeatedly pointed out that none of the gun control proposals being discussed would prevent any law-abiding citizen from owning a gun.
The problem is, the data don't support your beliefs. So what do you do? You make fun of the studies, calling them "faux intellectualism" and "boatload of sexy sounding survey studies" and so on, pretty much the exact same thing that the global warming deniers and creationists do when the data doesn't support their politics. I'm not sure why you believe that your assumptions about self-defense don't need to be backed with data.
My solution is to improve everyone's safety by reducing the likelihood that they will be killed. You can't reduce the risk to zero, but you can make things much better, the way they are in Canada, or Australia, or Western Europe, etc. What's not clear about this? In a world where guns are more tightly regulated, everyone is safer. And I want everyone to be safer.
Here's a thought experiment. Suppose that in country A, where there are no guns, you have a 1% of getting murdered. In country B, where there are lots of guns, you have a 10% chance of getting attacked, but if you do get attacked, there's a 10% chance you can successfully defend yourself with your own gun. Which means that, in country B, you have a 9% chance of getting assaulted and killed, and a 1% chance of getting assaulted and defending yourself.
Which country is a safer place to live?
Get it? Costs versus benefits.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Last edited Sat May 11, 2013, 10:19 PM - Edit history (1)
My solution is to improve everyone's safety by reducing the likelihood that they will be killed.Ah. So you have a "plan". Here's the news. Nobody cares. Any prudent person will assume a risk they can control to avoid a risk they cannot control. Some call it the real world. Your solution to an ideological problem does not address the problem of self defense. Nobody cares about the overall chances of assault here or in some European country. Nor do they care about the fine distinctions you make between some criminals ability to beat them to death and getting shot. Nobody cares. Nobody will ever get murdered congratulating themselves that they reduced the rate of "firearm violence" a miniscule fraction of a percent because they don't own a gun. The only people that even pretend to care are the ones that are more interested in defending their ideology than people. And they do that because they don't think they will ever have to fight to survive. But if they were being honest they would admit that if they were being assaulted they'd shoot that fucker full of holes if they only had a gun.
And keep dodging. The "faux intellectualism" to which I refer is your touting research to avoid thinking about how to actually help people. You have shown no real intellectualism to date; merely the evasive parroting of other people's work. And you flog it relentlessly in the safest place you can find. It's easy to tell people what they want to hear, but sycophancy doesn't solve the problem either.
Your objective is not to make criminals somewhat less efficient. That's bullshit. Your objective is not to treat people like fungible assets on a spreadsheet. That's arrogant bullshit. Your objective is not to cook up some convoluted scheme to keep guns out of the hands of people who could beat someone to death. That's condescending bullshit. Your objective is not to select the "political cause du jour" and flog it in an attempt to score points off anonymous people you will never meet in real life. That's narcissistic bullshit. Your objective is to figure out how to actually help people deal with a specific problem. You won't find that solution by proselytizing about reducing peoples chances of being brutalized a fraction of a percent. That's insulting bullshit.
So to return to our illustrious car analogy - cars are the solution people have selected to facilitate mobility. Guns are the solution people have selected for self defense. What solution do you offer to replace the solution selected by millions of people that will work better than a gun?
Each and every one of millions of people will need a gun to stop an assault. Whatever solution you produce has to work for each and every one of them without reducing their chance of survival.
Get it? Costs versus benefits.
Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)classes to learn how to drive, testing and regulations on how to drive, speed, intoxication.
What is? NRA talking point Underground???
Robb
(39,665 posts)Gundamentalists are the worst sort of asshole.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)"The Writer's Guide to Firearms and Ammunition" from the National Shooting Sports Foundation:
http://www.nssf.org/share/pdf/writers_guide.pdf
In particular is the "Off-Target" and "On-Target" descriptions of the Section 5 "Examples of Inaccurate or Misleading Coverage." Many of these will be familiar to people who debate gungeoneers.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)I wouldn't pay to use it for toilet paper, but the Amazon preview shows that it is also has many of the same talking points off the "mythical" list....
http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Second-Amendment-Guide/dp/1935071165
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Not to mention efforts by manufacturers (and regulations on them), like air bags, ABS, seat belts, crumple zones, etc. That'll be the day that gun manufacturers spend millions/billions to come up with standardized safety features for their guns.
Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)Again. . .cars are regulated, as is driving.
And when I lived in Arizona, I owned six guns. Three from historic eras (revolutionary war, civil war, ww2) because I am a historian, a ruger for protection/target practice with my friend on the police force, a rifle for elk hunting and a shotgun for turkey hunting.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)If I use it and drive it on my own property. I do not have to do any of what you have listed.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Those mandates you refer to are generally for public usage, not for ownership or usage on private property.
Apple, meet orange.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
AlinPA
(15,071 posts)and cars were invented for transport.
Yes, accidents happen with cars.
But one does not take ones' car into a classroom and kill children on purpose. One does not use the car to take away the rights of others the way the 2nd amendment is used to take away the rights of others by killing them , threatening them, stealing from them, or killing their children.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Not to kill, at least not directly.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)What a weird thought...
Orrex
(63,203 posts)Assuming that you're in good health, I figure that you would last quite a few years.
And how long would you survive if all motor vehicles disappeared right now?
Probably a few weeks, tops. Even less if you live in a city.
The point is that comparisons between guns and cars are stupid for a great many reasons, but one of the main reasons is that cars (and motor vehicles in general) are enormously important to the functioning of society. Guns, not so much.
Additionally, how many cars were in use today on American roads? And how many guns were in use today on American soil? See how the comparison falls flat?
I know, I know. You're one of those self-sufficient super-citizens who could happily leap off the grid at this very moment, as long as you have your trusty firearm to let you bag tonight's dinner. That'll be great, until the ammo runs out in our posited post-vehicle world.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I think society would pretty much collapse if police didn't have recourse to lethal force.
Orrex
(63,203 posts)However, I'll re-frame the question:
How long would you survive if all civilian vehicles disappeared? And how long would you survive if all civilian firearms disappeared?
For purposes of this question (and for the sake of reality in general), I urge you not to indulge in the Teabagger fantasy that you need your guns to protect you from the government. Your guns are meaningless in the face of serious governmental force, and I would love to know what would drive you to armed resistance, if none of the brutalities thus far have inspired you to righteous rebellion.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I urge you not to go that direction. I'm an Iraq veteran who hasn't driven a car in near on a decade.
Seriously, rethink.
Now, I have no sense of owning a gun to protect me from the Federal Government. But if there were no guns, I would be very worried. Can you accept that?
Orrex
(63,203 posts)I accept that you would be worried. What, exactly, would you be worried about?
Society as a whole would collapse a hell of a lot faster if civilian vehicles disappeared than if civilian firearms disappeared, and I'm sorry but your worry doesn't trump that fact.
That's the point that's invariably missed by people who try to equate deaths by vehicle to deaths by firearm. Cars and trucks are essential to modern society in a way that firearms simply are not. Therefore, comparisons between gun and vehicle death must take this into account, but such comparisons never do.
Thank you for your service.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Back in the '90s I lived in DC and was violently assaulted multiple times. In those cases the assaults stopped when police showed up. Would they have stopped if police did not have deadly force? Possibly. Possibly not.
Cars and trucks are essential to modern society in a way that firearms simply are not.
Personally I imagine a world devoid of both of them.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)And cars these days have a lot of safety implementations and improvements in them. Guns? Not so much.
That's like saying that everybody should be able to own bazookas because aspirin overdoses kill more people per year. That doesn't make any sense.
sigmasix
(794 posts)If you honestly gave a damn about dead babies you wouldn't use such a dishonestly intended comparison; the pool makers aren't in favor of children drowning in thier pools so they dont attempt to destroy laws, regulations and politicians that seek to ameliorate the dangers represented by pools to small children and the rest of society by using common sense safety regulations.
Attempting to deflect the truth about the threat gunz represent for children by using manufactured outrage about pool deaths is a sign of sociopathic self delusions or willfully dishonest misanthropes that resist the acceptence of responsibility for life-ending gundamentalist 2nd amendment expressions.
If you honestly cared about all those gunned-down babies you should be cheering for the same sort of regulatory oversite that is used to make swimming pools safe.
Let's be honest here; gun humpers don't care about anything other than continuing thier addiction to the power they feel when armed to the teeth.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)mountain grammy
(26,619 posts)Guns are made to kill. Assault weapons are designed to kill many, and you really don't have to aim, just point. If there were just half the regulations for guns as for cars, swimming pools and lawn darts, we would all be better off.
"Too many children are dying, too many children." G. Giffords.
GCP
(8,166 posts)You can't argue with the gun-lovers. They're so scared of losing their penis-substitutes they'll put up with the unnecessary deaths of thousands of people yearly so they can swagger around armed.
Tragically, nothing is going to change. Gun manufacturers own this government in the form of the NRA and too many Americans want to hold onto their 'Precious'.
Response to GCP (Reply #21)
Post removed
Iggo
(47,550 posts)And I'd bet ten times that number would still be acceptable.
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)guns for everyone. My heart goes out to these little kids, killed before the age of awareness.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)propose a law that will slow this down? An AWB won't do it. Background checks won't do it. Short of banning all guns (which I know some here advocate), you know what would severely retard this rate?
Safe storage for homes with children.
Gun locks are already available for every gun sold by a dealer in New York (most have a box of the trigger locks and a box of the cable locks). Every police station in my area has a box of cable locks for whoever wants them. Most manufacturers include them at no cost (and some, like S&W and Remington, often build them into the gun). Gun safes start at $100 for a metal cabinet with a key lock on up to the $20,000 big fireproof safes that make most banks look lax.
Fuck biometrics or other "smart" guns -- a $1 lock is more than adequate except for the most-determined, oh, and it ain't got no batteries to die on you.
You have a kid? Lock it up. Your grand kids come over for the weekend? Lock it up. Failure to do so is a felony.
There. Your accident is more than halved, and the homicides (if stored in a safe) will also go down.
And for the car crowd: Who gives a shit if the murder and accident rates are down. So are the rates for cars. Does that mean we're going to stop trying to get either of them lower?
EDIT: We can start with this: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1883/text
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Make safe storage the law. Hold those who violate these regulations co-responsible for any harm that comes from their failure to comply. Make the penalties equal to that handed down to the actual offender (up to and including the penalties for homicide, etc.).
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)
Deep13
(39,154 posts)Benghazi!!
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Thank god I live in a sensible northeastern city that does'nt glorify gun culture.
Bucky
(53,998 posts)
billh58
(6,635 posts)According to the NRA apologists and the Gungeoneers, these numbers are nothing. A drop in the hat. Less than measurable on the "rights vs. tyranny" scale. It's a small price to pay for our God-given freedom to own as many guns as we like, and keep them all a secret from the government and each other.
What we really need, they say, are more gunz for more people, and absolutely no regulation. A large part of our population is comprised of a "well regulated" militia, and they ALL need to have guns to protect us when the Commies and Muslims invade our shores. A side benefit is, that when our Democracy allows tyranny to show its ugly face, our "well regulated" militia will be our first line of defense, and those US military members who stand with the government will be taken out in a heartbeat.
According to the very knowledgeable Gungeoneers, we should be thankful for the protection of our basic freedoms provided by the noble NRA, and for the wisdom they exhibit in all things related to the Second Amendment. Without their guidance and coaching, we could very easily fall prey to the media-driven fallacy that the proliferation of guns in this nation is somehow a "bad" thing. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it is, in reality, cars and swimming pools that we should regulate and ban. They are the real killers in this nation.
I, for one, am very grateful that the NRA apologists and Gungeoneers have given me a new perspective on the many benefits of gun ownership, and how we would not be free today if it weren't for their efforts on our behalf.
On behalf of a grateful nation, I salute all gunners for a job well done, and the few paltry deaths and injuries from "friendly fire" are to be expected.
DreamSmoker
(841 posts)I live in one of those Murder Hotspots in America...
Pomona California...
The only People shooting Guns and killing People are Bangers..
Criminals...
Another Facts is everyone around my home is armed to the teeth..
Does nothing to stop Drive By's...
marble falls
(57,078 posts)The majority of children ages 4 and under who are hospitalized for burn-related injuries suffer from scald burns (65 percent) or contact burns (20 percent).
Fireworks-related injuries sent more than 3,800 children to hospital emergency rooms in 1997.
Fires kill more than 600 children ages 14 and under each year and injure approximately 47,000 other children.
Approximately 88,000 children ages 14 and under were treated at hospital emergency rooms for burn-related injuries 62,500 were thermal burns and 25,500 were scald burns.
bigtree
(85,988 posts). . . especially not among our national legislators.
marble falls
(57,078 posts)member of the NFPA, I've never heard about that either except for those who want to weaken the fire code like builders and landlord associations.
My point is argue for a gun ban all one wishes but don't present it as the most dangerous thing that happens to kids.
There are other areas that will cut child mortality in bigger bites. like auto, road and driving safety, keeping poisons out of kids hands. These are the two largest killers of kids, bigger than firearm deaths.
GCP
(8,166 posts)All those other causes of death come from things that have useful functions and are necessary for living in the 21st century.
A gun does nothing but kill.
marble falls
(57,078 posts)GCP
(8,166 posts)But I repeat, they're designed for one purpose only, to kill.
marble falls
(57,078 posts)to name a few.
billh58
(6,635 posts)Even the few animals that are slaughtered for food with guns are "killed," which is the purpose of a gun. Police officers carry guns for protection, and are NOT taught to wound, but to kill. NRA assholes carry guns to intimidate.
Guns may be used as playthings on the range or in a gallery, but their designed purpose is to kill living things. That's why they are called "lethal weapons."
marble falls
(57,078 posts)billh58
(6,635 posts)The topic was the designed purpose of guns. It is to kill. You attempted to interject the "vegetarian" non-argument, and asserted that police officers carried guns to "intimidate." They do not.
Guns are lethal weapons which are designed to kill.
marble falls
(57,078 posts)reason cops carry is to intimidate. Do you think they carry them to kill as the opportunity arises? That the motto isn't 'protect and serve' but 'protect and kill when given the opportunity'?
Guns can be lethal. So are cars, knives, fertilizer. You don't want a firearm. Good. Don't own one. But I want to lawfully own, so I do and I've managed to kill no humans or even wing one not even accidentally and I haven't even ever wanted to. Why don't you want me to own a firearm? Because they're deadly? Not in my hands. Unless you're in season and I went to Game and Wildlife and got a tag and you're legal game in legal hunting area.
billh58
(6,635 posts)you must be...
marble falls
(57,078 posts)billh58
(6,635 posts)marble falls
(57,078 posts)billh58
(6,635 posts)Ain't I a devil...?
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)Calm down John Wayne.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)AR-10 type
http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-15.aspx
AR-15 and also banned by name
They would prevent me from buying one and I can not pass it down to a family member. Yes they will take it from me. So do not give me this crap it would not happen. It WAS in the proposed LAW.
marble falls
(57,078 posts)by rifles, according to the FBI. Now handguns are another story. So banning assault rifles would have almost no affect.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)More like rifles you can hunt with....some places.
I don't know anyone who hunts with an AR-15 they're generally considered gimmick rifles by guys I go out with.
As for passing down I fully expect my 12ga Mossberg 500 to last for generations. And in 10 years when this AR craze is over I'll be a lot more proud to hand it down.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)R-25 is chambered in larger calibers, 243 Win., 7mm-08 Remington and 308 Win all popular hunting calibers
the R-15 is for varmint hunting like wild pigs and rabbits and also comes. Just because they are WWI or WWII type military style weapons does not mean they are not hunting rifles. Most former military are trained on that type and they are comfortable and modular weapons.
premium
(3,731 posts)they're trained to shoot until the threat is neutralized, which doesn't mean that until they're dead, it means until they no longer present a threat. Ask me how I know.
billh58
(6,635 posts)trained to "intimidate", but to aim at the center of mass. Ask ME how I know.
premium
(3,731 posts)I said they're not trained to kill, they're trained to shoot until the perp is no longer a threat, which is far different from shooting to kill.
I had 30+ years as an armed USFS Ranger, I was trained the same way as any other LEO in shooting policies.
billh58
(6,635 posts)I responded to was that police officers carry guns to "intimidate." They do not, and "center of mass" shots are, in many cases, fatal even if that is not the main intent.
premium
(3,731 posts)cops don't carry to intimidate, they carry for self protection, but you did say that they're trained to kill and I pointed out that you were wrong about that, that's all.
billh58
(6,635 posts)that, and I apologize. I should have said that police officers are trained to "kill if necessary." The reaction by the public after a righteous shoot is often, "but he could have just shot him in the leg to wound him." It is serious shit for a police officer to draw a weapon, and when that happens all bets are off.
premium
(3,731 posts)Luckily for me, in my 30+ years, I never had to shoot another human, I mainly had to shoot injured animals that were suffering, mainly deer that had been hit by vehicles, a couple of bears that had become a menace to humans, things like that.
billh58
(6,635 posts)retired now, so congratulations on making it. Take care...
all retired now, living the good life in rural Nevada. Thanks and you take care also.
Uzair
(241 posts)Look at them already talking about cars and spouting the same old NRA bullshit.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)But every gun owner on this site does care and many of us have proposed solutions that would make a difference. But we always get lumped together as "gun nut" spouting "NRA talking points" and your side tends to ignore what we say as solutions.
Uzair
(241 posts)Registrations, restrictions, bans, licensing, etc?
Because if you don't, you're talking out of your ass. And you know what? Whenever we repeat the facts to you guys about these other countries with strict gun laws, you always come back with "the second amendment!" or "criminals break laws anyway!" or "crime is going down!" or "car accidents!".
So yeah, you don't care about anything other than your precious guns.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)We already have some good restrictions as in fully automatic weapons. I have no big issue with magazine size restrictions but an arbitrary number like 10 I disagree with. Handguns in smaller calibers normally have 55-17 that fits within the grip. My AR comes with 20 round standard magazines and that is about right. More than that and they tend to jam and change the balance of the rifle. Above 30 and I have no problem with magazine bans, just do not think it will help much. I have proposed a licensing scheme that can be by type of weapon and required training. This might be a 2nd amendment issue though. I think the emphasis should be more on handguns as this is where the main problems are. I think we should fully fund and enforce existing laws. I thinks a private citizen should be able to have an FFL run a NICS for a private buyer which is not allowed now. I do not care for bans especially on features on a weapon type. Registrations will have too much blow back and we could work on issues that would help with fewer people opposed. Funding mental health will help a great deal also. Unfortunately the hard truth is we DO have the 2nd amendment to the constitution and we have to work from how it has been interpreted by the USSC, those other countries do not.
Uzair
(241 posts)Can you even remotely comprehend the FACT that the laws passed in other countries have WORKED and are PROVEN to reduce gun violence to such levels as to be almost NONEXISTENT? You know how many children have died as a result of guns in Japan in the last 5 months? Zero. Shit, it's zero for the last several YEARS.
Your entire reply is like a cut and past from page 83 of the NRA Talking Point Manual. Congratulations. You have earned the title of DU gun nut. I'll see you in 5 months when another 71 children will be dead. You can say you care, but that's just talk.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)different country with different cultures and constitutions. Much higher suicide rate much more submissive. Many fewer guns to start with. I am not going to change your thinking and you are not going to change mine. I have put out some ideas the NRA is opposed to and still get called a "gun nut" and normal comeback of spouting NRA talking points. I hope you have a good evening as we agree tpo disagree and further conversation will accomplish nothing.
it's people like you that make gun owners dig their heels in.
BTW, your bullshit that 99% of gun owners are irresponsible is just that, bullshit, the overwhelming majority of gun owners are responsible citizens that will never commit a crime with their firearms.
Enjoy you stay here.
Gun crime in the U.S. is 7 times that of Canada, yet Canada has NOT (repeat: has not) banned guns. Are Canadians somehow more responsible than Americans? Do they not play the same video games and watch the same movies? Do they not have gangs and drugs? (Despite what people might think, drugs are just as illegal in Canada as they are in the United States). Do they not have people who are mentally ill?
Or could it be that they have SANE GUN LAWS and no bullshit second amendment to block those laws from existing?
You can't even admit that there's a problem. 71 dead kids, and you can't even admit that there's a problem. You talk about cars and swimming pools and everything else. You talk about how 71 dead kids is "such a small percentage" like it's nothing. You talk about gangs and inner cities and the drug war and pretend like there's nothing racist hiding behind those statements. You talk about "people like me", and tell me to "enjoy my stay" like this is NOT a liberal website and like you're NOT the minority here and like your ways, where it's perfectly OK and normal to give a 5 year old a gun as a birthday present have NOT been a driving force behind the gun culture that has resulted in thousands upon thousands of people who die and are injured behind the barrel of a gun year in and year out.
We're right, you're wrong. The facts prove it. Can't accept that? Tough. It's PEOPLE LIKE YOU who enable this shit to continue. We're not the ones who need to change our minds, you are.
premium
(3,731 posts)the problem is people like you, yes, I mean like your extremist views, that causes gun owners to dig in their heels.
There are extremists on both sides of the issue and you are one of them, like your saying that 99% of gun owners are irresponsible, when gun owners see that, they tend to dismiss anything the gun control people have to say, so, in essence, you my friend, are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
And I don't have to change my views just because you say so.
Like I said, enjoy your stay here, however long that may be.
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)with their NRA inspired bull.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)really should stop, it does not help
billh58
(6,635 posts)it's a little late for "can't we all just get along?" Were you around when the Gungeon was the only place that the topic of gunz could be discussed? If so, do you remember the ridicule, vitriol, and abuse heaped upon anyone who dared even mention gun control in that right-wing swamp?
The animosity you are seeing is a result of DU opening up the discussion about guns to GD, and years of pent up frustration spilling over. The NRA is an insidious, anti-American, right-wing lobby for the proliferation of "gunz for everybody, with no questions asked." Any reference to the NRA's "talking points" (and they are well known to both sides of the argument) invites a well deserved call out on a Democratic discussion board.
Yes, there are sane, sensible, and responsible gun owners in this country, and many of them are Democrats, including a few who post on DU. A substantial number of American gun owners agree with the need for the implementation of stricter gun control legislation in our country. The "cold dead hands" NRA apologists who try to blame automobiles, swimming pools, and lawn darts for "just as many, or more" deaths and injuries are being willfully obtuse, and carrying water for Wayne LaPierre and his criminal organization.
These apologists also attempt to frame every argument and discussion as if they, and they alone, are enabled to speak for ALL gun owners. That is pure and utter bullshit, and is the biggest NRA straw man lie of them all. The Second Amendment does not grant blanket permission for the unregulated proliferation of gunz in this country. The SCOTUS decisions that the NRA apologists like to brag about are very clear on that point. As with all civil rights, guns, where they are "borne," and who gets to "keep" them may be regulated.
I agree with you that "name calling" for the sake of calling names does no one any good. When the name which is called, however, is an accurate description of the intended target, then there is maybe some harm, but no foul.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I do not remember those exchanges but that is also wrong. I made one post in the NEW forum and was promptly banned, no warning at all. I would have removed my post if asked but I was not given the opportunity. At least I have seen some posters with different views in the RKBA forum. I just think name calling on both sides is childish and makes that poster look dumb.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)It's been an absurdly divisive move, and has erected permanent barriers between members. Both sides are talking past each other, and the playground-level insults are just one of the symptoms.
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)If you mean calling the extremists on "gun liberty"the descriptive "gun nuts', it probably does not help. There is no help for gun nuts who equate freedom with license, or gun nuts who claim that the 2nd amendment allows citizens to have guns to overthrow the government, or gun nuts who deny that the 2nd amendment has anything to do with militia.
If you mean gun nuts who will tell any lie, make up any history, deny any and all rights to others, for the sole purpose of keeping and carrying more and deadlier weapons, it probably does not help.
While calling a gun nut a gun nut probably does not help, it certainly does not help to let these gun nuts believe their lies, distorted logic, and use of RW talking points should be treated as if it was normal.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Pholus
(4,062 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)We live in a country with 325 MILLION people, about 75 Million of them children. Those are huge numbers. That's enough people that you would think damn near any cause of death you could define would be greater than this.
As for your question, the answer depends on your relationship to the victim. To the family of a murdered child, and no doubt to many gun control aficionados here, the answer is that one death is too many. But seen another way, losing one child per million children -- literally -- hardly seems enough to warrant calls for extreme action. With numbers that small the level of the response says more about gun control fanatics than it does about the scope of the problem. If saving children were the actual motivation you would have more effect and save more lives banning pools and bathtubs and five-gallon buckets.
But please, when you do switch causes to banning bathtubs and buckets, please do not post every death here on the forums. People might make the mistake of believing the problem is far larger than it is.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Pholus
(4,062 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Every murder is a horror and a crime. There is not some threshold below which one can say "Oh... well that's okay then!" How any one death impacts an individual depends on a whole lot of factors -- a single child gunned down on your street hits harder than a thousand killed on the other side of the world.
The only question that matters is whether or not THIS level of mayhem demands a change. Some argue yes, some say no, both have their reasons and I see no reason to debate them here. What you cannot do, regardless of your position, is too claim the moral high ground.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Sorry but YOU begged the obvious question with your original dismissive statement:
Small COMPARED TO WHAT?
Why are you so afraid of saying what the price of our rights and freedoms are? Based on your statement that the number is surprisingly small you have implied that a higher level of mayhem is acceptable to you and moreso that your position is malleable based on this rate. So your tolerance level to gun violence is now relevant. What is the level of mayhem causes you to say enough is enough? Why are you getting all soft about this and refusing to answer?
I've argued this exact point about cost with some rabid gunners before and the self-interested twits actually stated that if they didn't have unfettered access to their ego accessories that we were no longer free and ergo as good as dead anyway so NO number of deaths was too high. Of course they also cannot accept what that says about them so they hedged with their Heinlein quote that once we're in gunner "cloud cuckoo land" and we all have guns violence will magically end. You know, just like perfect Communism will be a paradise for the worker too. Those dreams of the fanatical that fly in the face of logic and reality.
I'm disappointed in you. If you can't come out and say what "big" is then you CERTAINLY had no logical basis for your claim that the OP's numbers are "surprisingly small."
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)And I already offered you something to compare it against... drowning. Look into that. Or if drowing deaths aren't interesting enough feel free to substitute your own. Perhaps accidental or intentional poisoning is more your speed. Or perhaps... instead of focussing on the ONE PER MILLION deaths by firearms, you could devote the attention to the one in FIVE children in America who went to bed last night without food -- the ones who's only meal is their vanishing school lunch.
If you want to discuss gun control you will have to look elsewhere. I am quite familiar with the issue, I am more than knowlegeable about these weapons, I understand the issue in a way few gun control aficianados here seemingly match... but I don't really care about it one way or the other. I don't currently own any guns and have no plans to purchase any, but that's not the reason why. I don't care to discuss it here because I think there are FAR more important issues we should be focussed on; I think the gun control side of the debate here is emotional, abusive and often ignorant; and no meaningful gun control legislation can possibly pass anyway. It cannot pass the House, it would never pass the Senate, and if real gun legislation reached his desk Obama wouldn't sign it. So instead what we have is a bunch of people waving dead kids like props and screaming at each other over meaningless feel-good candyfloss legislation. No thanks.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Last edited Mon May 13, 2013, 09:45 PM - Edit history (1)
If the OP numbers are right, 71 one children in five months is 140 children per year. That is actually low but they're biasing towards little kids and not counting teens. Given that there are approximately 74 million children the odds are more like one in 500000, not one in a million. So first off, you lose points on sloppiness.
Using these numbers there is a 499999/500000 chance that a given kid makes it through one year. "Surprisingly small" as you have said so smugly...
Of course, and to put this in terms that your "peerless" knowledge of gun control issues should mean you are aware of the "Russian Roulette" effect as well. More than one trigger pull (even spinning the cylinder between shots) lowers your overall chance of survival. I take your self-proclaimed brilliance about these matters as an indicator I don't have to explain the calculation but take those annual odds over 18 years and there is now a 29999/30000 chance a given kid is still around. That number seems solid given the 1996 National Research Council numbers placing the adult lifetime odds at 1 in 3074 that you "get capped" at some point (to use those fancy terms you know *so* much better than I).
One in 30000 don't make it to 18. So, Mr. Expert is that a "big" or "surprisingly small" number? I guess you think it's small since it simply follows from the last one.
But let me now explain that in the terms that *I* understand. In my children's smaller urban school district I should expect 2 fatal shootings involving their classmates to occur while they are attending school there. We beat the odds at this point in that we've only had one. Yay for us. But before we break out the bubbly my kids are only halfway to 18 so actually we're right on track.
It's also why I am so interested in that simple question you are WAY too gutless to answer. Come on, "surprisingly small" COMPARED TO WHAT? As a scientist, I don't get "surprised" at anything under a factor of 10 so I am simply trying to see how far down the rabbit hole you are. After how many shootings in my school district do I get your oh-so-important permission to be upset with just cause?
But you desperately don't want to answer. You want the narrative to be that I am the "emotional, abusive and often ignorant" one though all I have done is point out the full implications of your apparently uninformed statement that you STILL refuse to quantify properly. And now we're on to the part of the show you trot out the well-worn accusations of "waving dead kids like props" to hope the topic changes.
It's not going to. Worse, you just made another ignorant statement. As opposed to what exactly? What's your counter plan? Sounds like it is to bury them by the light of the moon, speak of them in hushed whispers if at all and pretend that it's all okay.
Simply awesome!
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)I'm all for a broad based approach to figuring out why it's so much higher than other nations, btw, but the sheer amount of guns we have has to be taken into consideration.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)I think the accident number shocks me more- they could have been prevented with a little coomon sense. When I owned a gun it was locked up. I don't own one now, by the way, and have no real desire for one.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)70 Fans
1 hour ago ( 1:30 AM)
For now we shouldn't change a thing with gun laws. At this rate it won't be long before all the children of irresponsible gun owners with kill each other off and there will be no one left to pass on their genes and their poor parenting skills. Then some sane gun legislation, which despite the protestations of the rabid gun crowd ARE constitutional (according to none other than Supreme Court Justice Scalia), will be easy. Who said evolution doesn't work.
BTW, I own them and have a concealed carry. They are always locked up. If I should ever need one of them for something other than target shooting, one is kept in an armored, push-button combination lock safe. It takes me all of 5 extra seconds to open it and chamber a round. The chances of needing a weapon for household defense faster than that is virtually zero. Infinitely less than the chances of an unauthorized person or child getting a hold of one that is unsecured.
I may be a little bit paranoid, but unlike the foaming-at-the-mouth NRA crowd, I'm not delusional.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/sender/texas-boy-shot-by-brother_n_3234438_251148431.html
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jennifer Berndt
This isn't funny anymore
83 Fans
29 minutes ago ( 2:06 AM)
You know, there's a twisted kind of logic to what you say. I find it a bit unsettling that you could be right that this is the only way sanity will be returned to the debate.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Jennifer_Berndt/texas-boy-shot-by-brother_n_3234438_251152078.html
So this is how the debate will end?
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts).
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Pholus
(4,062 posts)In 2004, during some of the nastiest fighting of the Iraq war (first battle of Fallujah) the military was expending 72 million rounds a year in Iraq to support 250,000 troops. See http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has176250.000/has176250_0.HTM
This year, the commerce department released figures showing that Ammo imports in the U.S. reached 457 million rounds in just the first two months of 2013. See http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/08/foreign-ammo-imports-doubled-in-early-2013-to-meet-exploding-u-s-demand/
So how crazy is crazy? We're arming to the point where we IMPORT 38 Iraq War's worth of rounds each year. This NEGLECTS domestic production.
ileus
(15,396 posts)31 of those can be thrown out because they were somehow intentional.
It's the 40 accidents that need to be corrected. These are easily avoidable either through better training, or keeping firearms locked up when not in use.
People with CHPs need to understand their responsibilities are with protecting their families from threats and from letting their PSD fall into the wrong hands.
Casual owners also need to know the importance to keeping their firearms locked up when not at the range or in the field.
IveWornAHundredPants
(237 posts)I'll bypass all my other questions ("Thrown out"? Really? And why is it such a problem for people with a Church Historian's Press to let their Phase Sensitive Detector fall into the wrong hands?) and just ask what it means for a "casual" popgun owner to be "in the field"? It bolsters my theory that an awful lot of gun owners prowl the tall grasses with their guns drawn pretending to be Rambo when they're sure no one's looking.
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)So that gun nuts can have their assault weapons
JustAnotherGen
(31,813 posts)Endangering the welfare of a child.
That's a solid solution. A few people start having their surviving children placed in Foster Care while they do their slap on the wrist time and take parenting classes then maybe more people will be as careful as my dad was with his guns.
Take the gun debate out of the debate.
In this case - there was gross negligence.
Had the parents left their child or shit - a dog in a car on a 90 degree day they would have been slapped at minimum with neglect in my state.
That they were so irresponsible at the very least needs to be addressed by the law.
With all of the fire power I grew up with? This didn't happen because my father didn't neglect his children or endanger their welfare or lives by leaving his guns around.
The parents . . . their grief aside? it's not about the tool used to do this - its about the neglect.
Oh yes - I want reform on the gun issue. I just think that Child Welfare laws can be enacted in all 50 states that treats a parent leaving a loaded gun around the same way we treat a parent whose child comes into school and lets it slip that they are hungry - in the meantime.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)But just to be safe, don't let them near the pressure cooker.
