Children and Guns

[soylentgreen]

Sorry but your premise was already debunked..

Statistically pools are more dangerous than firearms in our society.

What is it with you and your "anti American" sentiments?

Nothing has been debunked. All you and others have done is try and lead the conversation away from an area you know you cannot win in. That there are many dangers does absolutely nothing to lessen the danger of stupidity with guns.

Nor am i anti american. That it happens to be a bunch of americans putting out such worthless opinions as the one you have just attempted means only that i am anti really bad arguments.

 

[Old Trapper]

Statistically pools are more dangerous than firearms in our society.

Now that I would love to see some statistics on.

 

[jaeger19]

Nothing has been debunked. All you and others have done is try and lead the conversation away from an area you know you cannot win in. That there are many dangers does absolutely nothing to lessen the danger of stupidity with guns.

Nor am i anti american. That it happens to be a bunch of americans putting out such worthless opinions as the one you have just attempted means only that i am anti really bad arguments.

Yada yada yada.

the conversation was already won the minute its pointed out that statistically pools are more dangerous than firearms. And it puts the argument of "the stupidity of americans and guns"... in perspective... which is that americans don't have a problem with being stupid with guns.

And yes your posts are anti American... In fact.. you jump into arguments with your anti American statements when you don't even realize what the debate is about. Frankly it makes you look silly.

 

[jaeger19]

Now that I would love to see some statistics on.

Sure.

Every year, in the United States, around 550 children under the age of ten die from drowning in a pool.
Every year, in the United States, only 175 children under the age of ten are killed by a gun.

Death by pool is over three times more likely than death by gun, yet, there are forty guns for every pool in the United States.

 

[sanman]

Do you think this shooter was settling a score with a bunch of random victims? Do you think he didn't know that it was a dangerous implement and he would be causing loss of life?

Apparently Florida law allows a person to own an AR-15 when they're 18 or older. You can own a gun even if you're not old enough to drink or to vote? There needs to be a maturity factor to consider here. Otherwise death-by-teenage-tantrum is going to become ever more commonplace.

 

[Rucker61]

Apparently Florida law allows a person to own an AR-15 when they're 18 or older. You can own a gun even if you're not old enough to drink or to vote? There needs to be a maturity factor to consider here. Otherwise death-by-teenage-tantrum is going to become ever more commonplace.

Every state allows 18 year olds to own a long gun at age 18. Nearly every state allows ownership of AR-15s.

 

[jaeger19]

Apparently Florida law allows a person to own an AR-15 when they're 18 or older. You can own a gun even if you're not old enough to drink or to vote? There needs to be a maturity factor to consider here. Otherwise death-by-teenage-tantrum is going to become ever more commonplace.

but it hasn't been.

That's the problem with all these.. but but but.

 

[sanman]

but it hasn't been.

That's the problem with all these.. but but but.

What's your explanation for why it hasn't been? And how does it inform a prescription for the current predicament?

 

[WCH]

If you've got a collection you could keep it in a big gun safe. That way if you use any of your guns for hunting or target practice you can get them out of the safe for when you're using them. If you keep a defensive firearm they do make small safes which can be opened quickly and easily by authorized personnel.

A loaded 870 on the closet self works for me. Fairly quick and easy access.

 

[WCH]

A handgun has much lower ballistic power and much less lethality than a rifle. To wreck the kind of havoc he did with just a handgun he would've had to get much closer which would make it much easier to tackle him before he shot as many people as he did with the rifle from far away.


Well I would say that gun purchases are a bit on the decline now during the Trump administration as opposed to the Obama administration when gun purchases were sky high. Obama even admitted that more guns were sold during his administration than any other administration. I would say the biggest demand for a ban on firearms and when gun ownership and purchases were at their greatest decline was during the Clinton administration.

Your link doesn't talk about a decline on gun ownership, it just compares gun owners with non gun owners and talks about their similarities and differences.

Could be more people are not letting on that they have guns in their possession.

Yes, Barry helped sell a lot of firearms.

 

[TurtleDude]

Apparently Florida law allows a person to own an AR-15 when they're 18 or older. You can own a gun even if you're not old enough to drink or to vote? There needs to be a maturity factor to consider here. Otherwise death-by-teenage-tantrum is going to become ever more commonplace.

you seem ignorant of facts. you can vote at 18-that amendment was passed during Nam. and 18 has been the law of the land ever since the federal government pretended it had proper jurisdiction in this area.

 

[jaeger19]

What's your explanation for why it hasn't been? And how does it inform a prescription for the current predicament?

Because by and large.. teenagers who own AR 15's aren't more prone to death by teenage tantrum any more than teenagers that own cars.. or trucks... or knives etc.

 

[sanman]

Because by and large.. teenagers who own AR 15's aren't more prone to death by teenage tantrum any more than teenagers that own cars.. or trucks... or knives etc.

Cars and trucks and even knives have legitimate uses that don't revolve around killing people. Guns are made for one thing - lethality. There's no pressing need for them to be in the hands if teenagers.

 

[Rucker61]

Cars and trucks and even knives have legitimate uses that don't revolve around killing people. Guns are made for one thing - lethality. There's no pressing need for them to be in the hands if teenagers.

Congress disagrees with you:

In 1968, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed by a Democratic House and Senate, signed by a Democratic president and affirmed by a liberal majority SCOTUS. Here's the opening paragraph:
Gun Control Act of 1968 Sec. 101. The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.

 

[jaeger19]

Cars and trucks and even knives have legitimate uses that don't revolve around killing people. Guns are made for one thing - lethality. There's no pressing need for them to be in the hands if teenagers.

So do firearms.. that's why we have thousands upon thousands of legally owned AR 15's and yet they are rarely ever used in crime.

there is no reason for them not to be on the hands of an 18 year old. As proof shows. Those laws have been in place for decades.. owning a firearm at 18 and an AR 15 at 18. and for thousands upon thousands owned.. rarely if ever a problem.

 

[sanman]

So do firearms.. that's why we have thousands upon thousands of legally owned AR 15's and yet they are rarely ever used in crime.

Guns are made to take life - if they weren't that way, nobody would want them.
The key is to make sure that they're in good hands - because if they're in bad hands, then unarmed people don't stand a chance. There should be a right to freedom from arms too, not just a right to bear arms.

there is no reason for them not to be on the hands of an 18 year old. As proof shows. Those laws have been in place for decades.. owning a firearm at 18 and an AR 15 at 18. and for thousands upon thousands owned.. rarely if ever a problem.

18-year-olds aren't old enough to drink - why should they be old enough to shoot?
There's an increasing problem, and it's going out of control. Society won't be livable for non-gun-owners (maybe the pro-gun lobby want it that way)

 

[Old Trapper]

Sure.

Illogical as hell, but then, when was logic ever a trait of the right wing:

https://badatheist.wordpress.com/2015/04/19/the-differences-between-swimming-pools-and-guns/

BTW, did you see where Trump is not blaming the kids saying they could have done more? Of course, he doesn't blame himself for the actions he has taken to make it easier for the mentally ill to get guns;

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-florida-students-done-150722680.html

 

[Casper]

Cars and trucks and even knives have legitimate uses that don't revolve around killing people. Guns are made for one thing - lethality. There's no pressing need for them to be in the hands if teenagers.

You seem to forget, shooting competitions, firearms collecting, personal protection and hunting, oh and I assume you do not want them serving in the Armed Services, even though Millions have and still do. Maybe you should think things out a bit longer before running on pure emotion.

 

[Casper]

Illogical as hell, but then, when was logic ever a trait of the right wing:

https://badatheist.wordpress.com/2015/04/19/the-differences-between-swimming-pools-and-guns/

BTW, did you see where Trump is not blaming the kids saying they could have done more? Of course, he doesn't blame himself for the actions he has taken to make it easier for the mentally ill to get guns;

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-florida-students-done-150722680.html

He was not diagnosed as being mentally ill a year ago when he bought the rifle, hence the reference to the past law is irrelevant.

 

[sanman]

You seem to forget, shooting competitions, firearms collecting, personal protection and hunting, oh and I assume you do not want them serving in the Armed Services, even though Millions have and still do. Maybe you should think things out a bit longer before running on pure emotion.

You can operate all kinds of hardware in the Armed Services - should you be allowed to operate all of that on the streets? There are DACA people who serve in the military too, btw.


So your main concern is being able to participate in shooting competitions, to have collections, and hunt, not just personal protection. It seems to me that the last item is in a different category than the others which aren't that important compared to taking a person's life. Because by comparing these hobbies like shooting competitions, gun collecting, and hunting, against the lives of ordinary non-gun-owners, it seems like you're saying that life is cheap. I don't feel that life is cheap, and so while it's one thing to want control over protecting yourself (ie. self-defense), it's another thing to be fond of some hobby like competitive shooting, or collecting, or hunting. If you're going to participate in shooting competitions, that can be done on a shooting range, which is a special environment. Owning a collection doesn't mean shooting it off in the streets, where ordinary people can be harmed.

I just don't see why some mentally deranged 18-year-old should have the legal right to access a weapon that's designed to kill so efficiently.

 

[Casper]

You can operate all kinds of hardware in the Armed Services - should you be allowed to operate all of that on the streets?
So your main concern is being able to participate in shooting competitions, to have collections, and hunt, not just personal protection. It seems to me that the last item is in a different category than the others which aren't that important compared to taking a person's life. Because by comparing these hobbies like shooting competitions, gun collecting, and hunting, against the lives of ordinary non-gun-owners, it seems like you're saying that life is cheap. I don't feel that life is cheap, and so while it's one thing to want control over protecting yourself (ie. self-defense), it's another thing to be fond of some hobby like competitive shooting, or collecting, or hunting. If you're going to participate in shooting competitions, that can be done on a shooting range, which is a special environment. Owning a collection doesn't mean shooting it off in the streets, where ordinary people can be harmed.

I just don't see why some mentally deranged 18-year-old should have the legal right to access a weapon that's designed to kill so efficiently.

Some of it, yes. No one is pushing for people to use them in the streets, honest discussion please.
Owning guns, for whatever reason does not equate to others being less safe, in fact I would say those around me when I carry (legally) are safer because there is someone present that is well trained and more than a little proficient and has a steady temperament willing to deal with a shooting event if one should occur, and we all know that it darn well can.
I do not either, problem here is that when this shooter bought his firearm he had not been diagnosed as being crazy, so hence no gun law would have made a bit of difference. Now new laws that give law enforcement more power to deal with those identified as having issues might make a difference, right now they can do little until they actually act out and break the law, which is too late.

 

[sanman]

Some of it, yes. No one is pushing for people to use them in the streets, honest discussion please.

I understand, but I'm saying that just because something is good for the Armed Services and military preparedness is not a justification for what should be legal on the street. What's legal in the Army should not necessarily be street-legal - ie. gun ownership may help military preparedness (it certainly did over a century ago), but we're not living in the same world anymore.

Owning guns, for whatever reason does not equate to others being less safe, in fact I would say those around me when I carry (legally) are safer because there is someone present that is well trained and more than a little proficient and has a steady temperament willing to deal with a shooting event if one should occur, and we all know that it darn well can.

Alright, so a mature responsible adult is one thing, but why should an immature teenager be treated like an adult?

I do not either, problem here is that when this shooter bought his firearm he had not been diagnosed as being crazy, so hence no gun law would have made a bit of difference. Now new laws that give law enforcement more power to deal with those identified as having issues might make a difference, right now they can do little until they actually act out and break the law, which is too late.

So that policy, which allows a non-diagnosed nutcase to get his hands on a weapon to take 17 innocent lives (plus the other who were wounded, plus the anguished family members), is needlessly plunging people into tragedy.

What should a mature responsible adult fear from an evaluation test that would catch an irresponsible immature nutcase?

 

[Casper]

I understand, but I'm saying that just because something is good for the Armed Services and military preparedness is not a justification for what should be legal on the street. What's legal in the Army should not necessarily be street-legal - ie. gun ownership may help military preparedness (it certainly did over a century ago), but we're not living in the same world anymore.



Alright, so a mature responsible adult is one thing, but why should an immature teenager be treated like an adult?




So that policy, which allows a non-diagnosed nutcase to get his hands on a weapon to take 17 innocent lives (plus the other who were wounded, plus the anguished family members), is needlessly plunging people into tragedy.

What should a mature responsible adult fear from an evaluation test that would catch an irresponsible immature nutcase?

I own several AR style rifles, yet have no desire to own an M4 or M16, full auto is over rated. That said I see no reason why someone with the proper training and background should be prohibited from owning them.

He was 18 when he bought it, not exactly a kid any more. Again, there were signs and no one acted upon them, things is there is little under the law that law enforcement can do, that is where the change is required.

I have no fear of being evaluated or tested on my personality or firearms skills, in fact I have been tested on both more than once, some clearances are hard to get. My guess is almost anyone that wanted to own a full auto firearm would have little issue with being tested on either count.

Now for the always present Fly in the Soup: If these sorts of laws are meant to include currently legal AR style rifles how on earth do you deal with the Millions already out of the barn?

 

[jet57]

Address the point. A 1994 stylem"assault weapons" ban takes no gun out of the hands of current owners and does not prevent the sale of firearms that are just as capable as an AR15. It would be completely ineffective for its intended purpose.

I did address the point: looks like were' going to try the assault weapons ban again, and this time we may get serious about it.

 

[jet57]

One, it's not news that the NRA-ILA supports lawmakers whomsupport the Second Amendment. Two, the Democrats are a minority in both Houses of Congress. What is "it" that is coming? Could this shooter have wreaked as much havoc with just handguns?

NRA-ILA support law makers who push gun products for the manufacturers. Democrats will NOT be a minority in both houses in come November. Republicans will start rolling over pretty soon now.