csbrown28
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 6, 2013
- Messages
- 3,102
- Reaction score
- 1,604
- Location
- NW Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Then tell us what legislation would have surely prevented this incident.
The gun-owning community is hanging this woman out to dry over this incident. So let's just be clear from the get-go that this is not ok.
When I had a toddler in the house, I also had a gun in the house; in my right front pocket, to be exact. It was either in my pocket, or in the safe, no exceptions. While in the safe it was unloaded and trigger locked, because redundant levels of safety is the way to be.
You can't legislate personal responsibility. If you can't trust a person with a gun, then you can't trust them with a child, or a car, or any meaningful job, or even a box cutter.
Those stats are well out of date as illustrated and addressed. You are hardly in a position to censure anyone on ignoring studies :roll:
Again, look at seat belts. How many lives have been saved since the law was enacted that, given seat belt use and design back before legislation was enacted? Before the law was enacted you can't retroactively look back and make claims about who would have been saved because it requires action on the part of those that drive, they must use the seat belt. I can't tell you who would have followed the law had there been a law sooner, only that some would have definitely followed the law and would have been saved due to use and improved design.
It's just like the lottery, the chances that you will win are 1 in tens of millions, the chances that someone will win are 1:1. My point is, I can't tell which children would be saved if laws required that owners be responsible for reasonably securing their weapons, but the chances that lives would be saved are virtually certain.
It's weird that you keep arguing against points I haven't made. Where did I suggest we legislate personal responsibility? The only thing I'd tell a mother is if she buys a gun for protection, the odds are that she increases the risk of her child dying, because that is what the data show. You mention your safety measures, which sound great. If you do that, that's commendable. But the fact is most people do not, and most people don't do it without mistakes because we're all human and forget - we change pants, put the gun on the table, someone comes to the door and the gun is left there, etc. A million ways someone meaning well can make a fatal error. And the data indicate that guns at home increase the rate of death for those reasons and (more significantly) increase the risk you get drunk and in a fight with your wife and instead of hit her, shoot her in the head. Or you get depressed and pull that gun out and kill yourself.
The gun-owning community is hanging this woman out to dry over this incident. So let's just be clear from the get-go that this is not ok.
When I had a toddler in the house, I also had a gun in the house; in my right front pocket, to be exact. It was either in my pocket, or in the safe, no exceptions. While in the safe it was unloaded and trigger locked, because redundant levels of safety is the way to be.
You can't legislate personal responsibility. If you can't trust a person with a gun, then you can't trust them with a child, or a car, or any meaningful job, or even a box cutter.
When a nation passes a handgun ban they're saying they can't be trusted with anything.
Among responsible gun owners it is already considered necessary to secure firearms from small children. Many of us have spent as much on gun safes as we have on the guns in them.
Those who don't lock up loose firearms where children are present are already in violation of the "societal ethic" on this. Making it illegal isn't going to fix stupid unless you do random home inspections, which will not fly.
But laws mandating storage thus-n-so DO open up a door for lawmakers to make owning a gun so onerous only the well-off can afford it... which is hardly fair to the working poor living in bad neighborhoods.
And as we've seen, lawmakers with an agenda will not hesitate to engage in backdoor covert actions infringing on rights.
So I see little benefit in cooperating with this notion, and considerable risk.
No thanks. Opposed. \
The Guardian advocates policy and is therefore biased. Try again.Do you really ? I prefer mine when its up to date
Crime in England and Wales falls 16% to lowest level since 1981 | UK news | The Guardian
Those numbers are generated from The Gun Control Network who advocates policy and is therefore biased. Try again.
"Gun crime" is only part of the picture, my sources regarded ALL crime to give the complete picture. Try again.
Another link only talking about "gun crime" not ALL crime. Here in America we use guns to prevent or stop non-gun offences, too, so your sources need to account for crimes which don't involve firearms. Try again.
Another link only talking about "gun crime" not ALL crime so as to give a slanted view. Try again.
Indeed .....
...• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
I think this child was shot because 1 adult was irresponsible, not because some grand audience on the national scale couldn't find common ground on some matter of policy.The point I keep trying to make isn't to compare the numbers of deaths from certain activities to other activities, but how preventable deaths are from activities relative to the need to partake and the assumption of risk relative to the benefits. Most of what you've listed are illnesses of some type where the actions needed to prevent them, if they can be prevented at all are worse than the risk we take if we get them.
Responsible firearm ownership may inconvenience the owner slightly, but when compared to the risk, especially to those that had nothing to do with the decision to handle the firearm in the first place (in the case of this thread that would be the 1yo that got shot) it seems acceptable that society asks this of firearm owners.
The problem is that any form of capitulation is perceived as a slippery slope that ends with the Government confiscating firearms from everyone. Given the national debate where both sides can overstep their bounds the hysteria on both sides continues and 1 year old's are shot by their 3 year old siblings because the adults in this country can't find the middle ground.
The Guardian advocates policy and is therefore biased. Try again.
Those numbers are generated from The Gun Control Network who advocates policy and is therefore biased. Try again.
"Gun crime" is only part of the picture, my sources regarded ALL crime to give the complete picture. Try again.
Another link only talking about "gun crime" not ALL crime. Here in America we use guns to prevent or stop non-gun offences, too, so your sources need to account for crimes which don't involve firearms. Try again.
Another link only talking about "gun crime" not ALL crime so as to give a slanted view. Try again
So on the one hand you're saying having guns increases risk, yet you're saying we're so safe we don't need guns.
Yet the number of guns in the hands of citizens has gone way up over the past decade or two. Seeing a contradiction?
And no you haven't advocated any specific gun control... but you seem much more inclined to argue against gun ownership than for it, don't you?
I call horse****.
Even the more conservative estimates on DGUs place them at 80,000 to 200,000 annually, in government funded studies which were actually about crime victims (NCVS).
Other studies, some done by private universities, put annual DGU's at anything from 250,000 to 1.5 million.
It seems very likely that the real number is in the hundreds of thousands. A median figure would be 500,000 DGUs annually, and in most cases no shots fired.
So you're telling me there are 3.5 million assaults or murders (which?), 5.5 million suicide attempts (attempts? with a gun? what did they MISS?) and 2 million gun accidents?
Horse ****.
I call horse****.
Even the more conservative estimates on DGUs place them at 80,000 to 200,000 annually, in government funded studies which were actually about crime victims (NCVS).
Other studies, some done by private universities, put annual DGU's at anything from 250,000 to 1.5 million.
It seems very likely that the real number is in the hundreds of thousands. A median figure would be 500,000 DGUs annually, and in most cases no shots fired.
So you're telling me there are 3.5 million assaults or murders (which?), 5.5 million suicide attempts (attempts? with a gun? what did they MISS?) and 2 million gun accidents?
Horse ****.
I backed up my position with evidence rather than subjective assertion . Perhaps you should do the same :roll:
I think this child was shot because 1 adult was irresponsible, not because some grand audience on the national scale couldn't find common ground on some matter of policy.
Child endangerment is already illegal so there's no more common ground to be had anyway.
Again, should we not have enacted seat belt laws and chalked it up to failure to be responsible?
No point when you just ignore any stats you don't like, is there?
As predicted.
Stat-wars are pretty boring. We just "link at each other" while hardly anyone bothers to read any of it. :lamo
You keep making this allegation yet provide the best example of someone doing so on this thread. Dismissing something out of hand because you don't like what its saying is not addressing anything. Its simply circling the wagons and waving a flag
The research cited assumes that if a person was killed and a gun was owned in the home, it was the gun in the home that was responsible for the death. In fact, virtually all of those deaths were due to guns being brought in by criminals getting into the home.It's weird that you keep arguing against points I haven't made. Where did I suggest we legislate personal responsibility? The only thing I'd tell a mother is if she buys a gun for protection, the odds are that she increases the risk of her child dying, because that is what the data show. You mention your safety measures, which sound great. If you do that, that's commendable. But the fact is most people do not, and most people don't do it without mistakes because we're all human and forget - we change pants, put the gun on the table, someone comes to the door and the gun is left there, etc. A million ways someone meaning well can make a fatal error. And the data indicate that guns at home increase the rate of death for those reasons and (more significantly) increase the risk you get drunk and in a fight with your wife and instead of hit her, shoot her in the head. Or you get depressed and pull that gun out and kill yourself.
Again, should we not have enacted seat belt laws and chalked it up to failure to be responsible?
Which is exactly what you're doing, which is exactly what I predicted, which I why I mostly stopped bothering with it some time ago.
Well as they say 'you can lead a horse to water' ........
One-year-old shot dead by 3-year old in Cleveland home
Right to bare arms? Shouldn't that right come with responsibility not to have a loaded gun where kids can get hold of them? Surely this is common sense. Another senseless and preventable death...face palm
Gun control? No?
This is as if the mother ignored the seat-belt law, so I'm not getting your point.Again, should we not have enacted seat belt laws and chalked it up to failure to be responsible?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?