Children and Guns

[Old Trapper]

Unless their parents taught them safecracking we'd still be fine.

Doesn't do you much good in the case of a home invasion.

In the past couple of weeks I know of at least three instances where kids got guns, took them to school, shot kids, and teachers (killing at least 4), and I had to wonder where they got the guns.

 

[Nap]

What wasnt clear and no idea who that is.

Lol, Watch the Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman interview. Your post reminded me of it. Every time Jordan said something she would respond "so what your saying is....." and then say some outlandish statement that had nothing to do with what he said. It was pretty hilarious.

 

[Lursa]

Lol, Watch the Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman interview. Your post reminded me of it. Every time Jordan said something she would respond "so what your saying is....." and then say some outlandish statement that had nothing to do with what he said. It was pretty hilarious.

I'll pass. Trying to focus on the topic.

 

[soylentgreen]

Sure. According to the BJS, over 1 million home invasions happen each year with over 25% of those resulting in death or injury to a resident.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

According to CDC, unintentional firearm deaths of children age 17 and under has averaged less than 100 per year for the last ten years. Since we don't know how many of those deaths were from guns that were illegally possessed, we don't know what kind of reduction a law about storing guns would be seen.

https://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

Yeah/ nah your trying to blind with numbers

from your link

• Offenders were known to their victims in 65% of violent burglaries;
Overall, 61% of offenders were unarmed when violence
occurred during a burglary while a resident was present.

Not so much criminal activity as it is personal revenge for a wrong done.
Where as a deth of a child by gun is the direct result of negligence by a gun owner.

 

[soylentgreen]

That stat doesn't directly translate to anything regarding unsupervised access.

If your concern is a child's death, shouldn't the leading cause be the main focus in protecting children? Focusing on an issue that accounts for a small of minority deaths while no attention is paid to the vast majority of issues to lead to the deaths of children is the point. It shows that you care less about the welfare of the children and more about your personal agenda against gun owners. Do I care about the deaths of those children? Of course, but I don't pretend that government can magically make a utopia where everyone lives a happy life. If you are going to argue about limiting peoples freedom and more governmental control in a person's life, you are going to need more than an appeal to emotion to convince me a law is necessary. The communities that I have lived in, it is completely a non issue. If it is such a problem where you live push for local and state laws.

What absolute nonsense. The discussion is specifically about a particular kind of arm done to children, not a general over view. Your demanding i should go of topic instead of looking at the issue. It is a deceitful attempt to change the subject.

it just shows what a bunch of sheeple americans can be that they always use the excuse of the government trying to control them. Safety is the issue not control and only the gun owner can do that. Governments can help by seting the example and prosecutiong those who refuse to behave sensibly or with safety with guns.

Instead of pushing your own agenda of whinging about being controlled perhaps you should show more concern for others.

 

[soylentgreen]

Where did you hear that from?

I am new zealander. I hear it from our own laws.
The Seven Firearms Safety Rules | New Zealand Police

Rule 6: Store firearms and ammunition safely
You are required by law to have a safe and secure place to store your firearms at your premises. Store firearms and ammunition separately, out of the reach of children, out of view and in a secure room, rack or cabinet approved by your Arms Officer.

A complete firearm is dangerous in the wrong hands, so lock away your unloaded and disabled firearm and ammunition separately. Do this immediately when you return to camp or home from shooting. Securing firearms out of sight will help prevent removal by thieves.

The Arms Regulations require these minimum standards when storing your firearm:

A firearm must not be put in any place where a child has ready access to it.
Ammunition must be stored separately or the firearm made incapable of firing.
Police advocates taking the following steps to ensure safe storage of firearms:
Remove the bolt and magazine from bolt-action firearms and lock away separately from the firearm.
Make sure both the chamber and the magazine are empty before storing any firearm.
For lever, pump or semi-automatic firearms, you may not be able to remove the action. Use a trigger locking device in this case.
Dismantile break-open types.

The difference between you and me is that these are laws in my country but are only suggestions in yours that appear to hardly followed.

In houses where guns are properly stored and made inaccessible child related gun deaths are zero.

Then passing such laws will be of absolutely no concern for those who do. It will only effect those who cause harm with their negligence.
So not a problem on that score.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yeah/ nah your trying to blind with numbers

from your link



Not so much criminal activity as it is personal revenge for a wrong done.
Where as a deth of a child by gun is the direct result of negligence by a gun owner.

wrong-many children killed by gun fire are member of drug gangs and are deliberately killed by other gang bangers

 

[TurtleDude]

I am new zealander. I hear it from our own laws.
The Seven Firearms Safety Rules | New Zealand Police



The difference between you and me is that these are laws in my country but are only suggestions in yours that appear to hardly followed.


Then passing such laws will be of absolutely no concern for those who do. It will only effect those who cause harm with their negligence.
So not a problem on that score.

having an unloaded firearm for self defense is akin to not wearing one's seatbelt or leaving the batteries out of a smoke detector

 

[DebateChallenge]

having an unloaded firearm for self defense is akin to not wearing one's seatbelt or leaving the batteries out of a smoke detector

Supposedly in New Zealand you're not supposed to use guns on other people and that includes for self defense. Guns are only to be used for hunting and target shooting, at least in New Zealand that's how it is.

 

[Barnacle]

Supposedly in New Zealand you're not supposed to use guns on other people and that includes for self defense. Guns are only to be used for hunting and target shooting, at least in New Zealand that's how it is.

Must have been one heck of a target shooting ...

Jan 15, 2018 - New Zealand - Wellington Region:
A Lower Hutt street has reopened after a man was shot near Pharazyn street in Melling just before midday. ...

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/348128/lower-hutt-street-in-lockdown-after-shooting

 

[TurtleDude]

Supposedly in New Zealand you're not supposed to use guns on other people and that includes for self defense. Guns are only to be used for hunting and target shooting, at least in New Zealand that's how it is.

if that is the case, its idiotic but I believe people in other nations have the right to live under moronic laws. Its when they try to impose their silly laws on us, I do have a problem.

 

[Nap]

What absolute nonsense. The discussion is specifically about a particular kind of arm done to children, not a general over view. Your demanding i should go of topic instead of looking at the issue. It is a deceitful attempt to change the subject.

it just shows what a bunch of sheeple americans can be that they always use the excuse of the government trying to control them. Safety is the issue not control and only the gun owner can do that. Governments can help by seting the example and prosecutiong those who refuse to behave sensibly or with safety with guns.

Instead of pushing your own agenda of whinging about being controlled perhaps you should show more concern for others.

I wasn't trying to get you off topic, I was merely pointing out that your dishonest "think about the children" appeal to emotion is not fooling anyone.

As far as "whinging about being controlled", you will simply have to forgive me for being a true liberal that prefers individual freedom over sacrificing freedom for the collective "good". It is sad, but ultimately because there are those that can't handle freedom shouldn't mean I should have to give up mine. If the people of other states and countries want to do so they are welcome to it, however don't try to force that nonsense on those in states that do not feel they need nor want such policies.

 

[soylentgreen]

I wasn't trying to get you off topic, I was merely pointing out that your dishonest "think about the children" appeal to emotion is not fooling anyone.

As far as "whinging about being controlled", you will simply have to forgive me for being a true liberal that prefers individual freedom over sacrificing freedom for the collective "good". It is sad, but ultimately because there are those that can't handle freedom shouldn't mean I should have to give up mine. If the people of other states and countries want to do so they are welcome to it, however don't try to force that nonsense on those in states that do not feel they need nor want such policies.

What freedom have you lost when all that is asked is that people behave sensibly with guns and not use your excuse of a false freedom to be stupid with a gun. And it is only stupidity to leave a gun loaded where a child can reach it.

 

[Nap]

What freedom have you lost when all that is asked is that people behave sensibly with guns and not use your excuse of a false freedom to be stupid with a gun. And it is only stupidity to leave a gun loaded where a child can reach it.

What age child are we talking about?

 

[Lursa]

What freedom have you lost when all that is asked is that people behave sensibly with guns and not use your excuse of a false freedom to be stupid with a gun. And it is only stupidity to leave a gun loaded where a child can reach it.

So...in NZ, criminals behave sensibly? That must be nice.

No responsible adults leave loaded guns where kids can reach them....but we cant force parents to be responsible. Irresponsible parents harm their kids in million ways other than guns and kill alot more of them in their cars.

 

[soylentgreen]

What age child are we talking about?

Does it make a difference?

 

[soylentgreen]

So...in NZ, criminals behave sensibly? That must be nice.

There is a stupid comment. Please tell me you are not so foolish as to think laws actually control what a criminal will do. Are you actually that ignorant of the philosophy of law that you think we create laws so that criminals will behave?

No responsible adults leave loaded guns where kids can reach them....but we cant force parents to be responsible. Irresponsible parents harm their kids in million ways other than guns and kill alot more of them in their cars.

True. And as a few here point out, there are many gun owners who do act responsibly. So a law requiring certain safety codes to be followed would be of no problem or reduce any of the freedom enjoyed by those people. However you wish to give a free pass to people who act stupidly with guns and cause harm to others through their actions.

True again, you cannot force parents to act responsibly, but you can help to create a social standard where irresponsibility is not acceptable. It really is as if america has the attitude that stupidity is a right and that some americans are determined to exercise that right to its full extent.

And as for other harms that is true also. But the subject matter here is specifically about one kind of harm, not all. The analogy here is that you are trying to pretend that if a person likes football then he must hate basketball. Other harms should also be looked at and dealt with. But that does not lessen the harm done by guns. If some one started a thread asking why he or his child should wear safety belts then i am not going to bring up the fact that kids die by guns as well in order to dismiss the importance of safety belts.

 

[Nap]

Does it make a difference?

Yes, if we are talking 6 or under then I would likely agree with you. However, I know kids as young as 8 that are more responsible and better trained with a gun then 95% of the population. It all depends on the maturity and the level of training the child has.

 

[soylentgreen]

Yes, if we are talking 6 or under then I would likely agree with you. However, I know kids as young as 8 that are more responsible and better trained with a gun then 95% of the population. It all depends on the maturity and the level of training the child has.

Great! I know women who have never been raped. So according to your thinking let's dismiss rape as a problem or even argue that it does not exist.

 

[Rucker61]

True. And as a few here point out, there are many gun owners who do act responsibly. So a law requiring certain safety codes to be followed would be of no problem or reduce any of the freedom enjoyed by those people.

The issue with requiring people to keep their guns locked up and unloaded is that SCOTUS has already ruled that such a law would be unconstitutional. There is nothing, however, to prevent any level of government from encouraging such behavior, like offering tax breaks for gun safe purchases, etc. New Zealand style inspection laws would also violate the 4th Amendment.

However you wish to give a free pass to people who act stupidly with guns and cause harm to others through their actions.

Please elaborate.

True again, you cannot force parents to act responsibly, but you can help to create a social standard where irresponsibility is not acceptable. It really is as if america has the attitude that stupidity is a right and that some americans are determined to exercise that right to its full extent.

Stupidity is not a uniquely American phenomenon.

 

[Nap]

Great! I know women who have never been raped. So according to your thinking let's dismiss rape as a problem or even argue that it does not exist.

No, I'm pointing out that laws need to be more localized because this country is so large that it has multiple different cultures and views. It isn't a puny island nation of 5 million people.

Edit: Who would you trust more with a gun:
A 12 year old in Mississippi that was raised on how to properly handle a firearm all his life.

Or

A 30 year old in California that never handled a gun much less recieved training on how to handle it.

 

[Lursa]

What freedom have you lost when all that is asked is that people behave sensibly with guns and not use your excuse of a false freedom to be stupid with a gun. And it is only stupidity to leave a gun loaded where a child can reach it.

So...in NZ, criminals behave sensibly? That must be nice.

No responsible adults leave loaded guns where kids can reach them....but we cant force parents to be responsible. Irresponsible parents harm their kids in million ways other than guns and kill alot more of them in their cars.

There is a stupid comment. Please tell me you are not so foolish as to think laws actually control what a criminal will do. Are you actually that ignorant of the philosophy of law that you think we create laws so that criminals will behave?

No stupider than not managing to make this connection: the vast majority, about 90%, in the US is gun CRIME and suicide.

Gun crime is committed by criminals :doh So no, here in the US we dont expect criminals to behave sensibly and we dont condone their owning guns. We have laws that say so....so there you go: gun laws to prevent criminals to own guns.

Funnily enough, criminals dont obey laws :roll: so there is still gun crime. We arent asking to rescind the laws preventing criminal ownerhsip of guns (of course not) but we recognize that the laws work just about as well as the drug laws in the failed War Against Drugs.

So the SENSIBLE thing for law-abiding people to do is to keep guns themselves---if the choose---to protect themselves from the criminals who do not act sensibly. Would you deny us the ability to defend ourselves at an equal level? Would you see us at great disadvantage over criminals that have no qualms...again...not sensible...about killing us?

 

[Lursa]

True. And as a few here point out, there are many gun owners who do act responsibly. So a law requiring certain safety codes to be followed would be of no problem or reduce any of the freedom enjoyed by those people. However you wish to give a free pass to people who act stupidly with guns and cause harm to others through their actions.

Still wrong. When laws are passed requiring guns be locked up in the home, they are generally blanket laws that apply to everyone. That means I, a single woman on rural property, would have to lock up my gun. I choose not to. I have one gun that remains out, on a shelf on my nightstand, where I can get to it immeditely at night or (since the bedroom is my safe room) I can get to it before someone breaking in can get to me. It's called a plan, preparation. There are no kids to be endangered.

Such a law would make me a criminal if I didnt comply, however people who chose to be irresponsible (if they had kids, etc) would still choose to be irresponsible. Such a law, if I complied, would endanger me to the extent that I dont find acceptable (otherwise I wouldnt have created a plan and safe room.) You dont seem to care about MY CHOICES.

 

[soylentgreen]

The issue with requiring people to keep their guns locked up and unloaded is that SCOTUS has already ruled that such a law would be unconstitutional. There is nothing, however, to prevent any level of government from encouraging such behavior, like offering tax breaks for gun safe purchases, etc. New Zealand style inspection laws would also violate the 4th Amendment.

Not true about the 4th. The police in nz must have reasonable grounds for a search. The safety laws are there so prosecution can happen when a person breaks the law not as a measure to search without restriction.
And saying that something is unconstitutional may be a fact but it is also a fallacious argument of appeal to authority. If we were arguing this in a court of law i would accept your point. But we are not, this is a debate and therefore you need produce good reason as to why such a constitutional rule is necessary.

Please elaborate.

A law requiring safety would not effect those who you claim would be doing those safety rules anyway.

Stupidity is not a uniquely American phenomenon.

True, what is unique to america is that stupidity is treated as if it a right. Being stupid with a gun is completely acceptable to many of the pro gun group. Especially those that argue a childs life is of no concern compared to a persons freedom to stupidly leave a loaded gun where a child can reach it.

 

[soylentgreen]

No, I'm pointing out that laws need to be more localized because this country is so large that it has multiple different cultures and views. It isn't a puny island nation of 5 million people.

Edit: Who would you trust more with a gun:
A 12 year old in Mississippi that was raised on how to properly handle a firearm all his life.

Or

A 30 year old in California that never handled a gun much less recieved training on how to handle it.

Fine, localise the law. But do not give me dumb arguments that freedom to be stupid with a gun outweighs a persons life.

Not a matter of trust, it is a matter of what a person does.