Proposal: A Gun in every household

[TurtleDude]

The U.S at one point banned the ownership of gold. They have more justification today of banning guns than they did gold at the time.

one stupid law does not justify another stupid law Bucky. gold s not constitutionally protected. Guns are

 

[Starvos]

Actually it is a means of curtailing rights.

"requiring citizens to demonstrate basic reading and writing skills in order to make an informed and responsible vote at the voting booth is certainly not curtailing rights".

That was the basis of certain jim crow laws that were designed to curtail voting rights of African americans.

False equivilence. I never said people should take a test in order to vote. Comparing that to a mandatory saftey training course is like saying that preventing people from yelling "Fire" in a crowded area counts as curtailing rights.
A Simple mandatory course in firearm saftey is a reasonable proposal. Do you know how many people are killed a year because of accidential firearm deaths that could easily have been prevented if said individual had the knowledge to handle their firearm correctly?
Talking endlessly about rights and forgetting that responsibilities are equally as important is to just be idealistic.

 

[Rucker61]

False equivilence. I never said people should take a test in order to vote. Comparing that to a mandatory saftey training course is like saying that preventing people from yelling "Fire" in a crowded area counts as curtailing rights.

You have the right to yell fire in a theater. See Brandenburg v Ohio.

A Simple mandatory course in firearm saftey is a reasonable proposal. Do you know how many people are killed a year because of accidential firearm deaths that could easily have been prevented if said individual had the knowledge to handle their firearm correctly?
Talking endlessly about rights and forgetting that responsibilities are equally as important is to just be idealistic.

Who gets to set the training requirements?
Who gets to approve the trainers?
Who gets to set the cost of the training?
Who determines what the passing standards are?

 

[TurtleDude]

False equivilence. I never said people should take a test in order to vote. Comparing that to a mandatory saftey training course is like saying that preventing people from yelling "Fire" in a crowded area counts as curtailing rights.
A Simple mandatory course in firearm saftey is a reasonable proposal. Do you know how many people are killed a year because of accidential firearm deaths that could easily have been prevented if said individual had the knowledge to handle their firearm correctly?
Talking endlessly about rights and forgetting that responsibilities are equally as important is to just be idealistic.

no tell me how many of those cases would have been stopped if someone had gone through say a 4 hours gun safety class. accidental gun deaths are going down even though the number of guns is way up. Lots of those accidental deaths come from individuals who engage in other irresponsible behaviors such as abusing drugs and handling guns, drinking booze and handling guns etc.

 

[Bucky]

You have the right to yell fire in a theater. See Brandenburg v Ohio.



Who gets to set the training requirements?
Who gets to approve the trainers?
Who gets to set the cost of the training?
Who determines what the passing standards are?

LOL!

These are questions that can be answered very easily.

Ever heard of driver's ed? The standards aint high. It seems you are refusing something similar to qualify for a gun.

 

[iguanaman]

If you design a boat out of toilet paper, it will take on too much water.

You could claim that the same problem affects any other design, but you'd be wrong. Capitalism is literally a "close your eyes and let god sort it out" economic system, Adam Smith himself knew the ideal "free market" could never exist and that the market would need help from government.

The most basic flaw of capitalism is that the "economics of scale" say that all corporations will eventually merge into one if left unchecked. The constant march to larger and larger corporations is easily observed. This of course weakens competition as the larger Corp. swallows up the small ones. Maintaining competition is a full time job in a capitalist system.

 

[iguanaman]

Guns are just an object no inherently about it unless of course you are implying they have some kind of sentience going on. Yes money is an object but hand out enough,yeah you would be surprised.

Well Bucky you would be surprised(or not) at the number of e-mails I get for penis enhancements . But do I take the bait? No.

The fact is owning a gun is like rolling the dice. Sometimes you win and sometimes you blow your brains out. The odds are not in your favor I'm afraid. It is your right to gamble.... just don't let your children in the game. Please.

 

[Bucky]

The fact is owning a gun is like rolling the dice. Sometimes you win and sometimes you blow your brains out. The odds are not in your favor I'm afraid. It is your right to gamble.... just don't let your children in the game. Please.

Gun support is an extreme position that is led by the loons of the right like Alex Jones.

The problem with people of this ilk is that they refuse to even debate the issue of gun control. They feel so above debate they ignore facts, making them dangerous loons.

There is something seriously wrong with people that praise and have nostalgia for people like Billy the Kid, Jesse James, William Brocius, etc..

These were damn criminals and killers yet the gun supporters view them as god-like figures.

And the sad thing? The wild west had better gun control than we do now!!!

 

[iguanaman]

Gun support is an extreme position that is led by the loons of the right like Alex Jones.

The problem with people of this ilk is that they refuse to even debate the issue of gun control. They feel so above debate they ignore facts, making them dangerous loons.

There is something seriously wrong with people that praise and have nostalgia for people like Billy the Kid, Jesse James, William Brocius, etc..

These were damn criminals and killers yet the gun supporters view them as god-like figures.

And the sad thing? The wild west had better gun control than we do now!!!

Back then most "respectable" towns had a rule that required guns to be turned in to the Sheriff when you came to town. It avoided a lot of trouble.

 

[HowardBThiname]

I agree. The opportunities need to be made available for those willing to work for them. I'd advocate things like tax breaks for businesses that set up shop in impoverished areas, and free trades (electrician, plumbing, building etc.) courses/discounted course materials for people in impoverished areas.

All great ideas. Years ago, I worked with a project that was advocating for an "option" for some juvenile delinquents that involved allowing them to be placed in homes outside their communities (most were states away) where they would live with host families instead of being placed in the justice system, which many never escape after they enter.

The project was well received by many and the funding (all private) was in place and we had judges and DAs ready to go. Then we got some flak from one inner-city community group that said it would be wrong to put black children in white homes. Never mind that we'd never made any racial suggestions of the sort, although it's true that up to that time, most of the host families were white. Anyway, the project never got off the ground after that, and no inner city children were given the option to leave their poverty-stricken circumstances, so I can't say whether it would have been a success in some of their lives or not.

Your idea about promoting training in the trades is excellent. Good money there, they can work for someone else or for themselves, eventually hiring others. Apprenticeships would also be a good idea. When the rate of high school graduation is as low as it is in some inner city communities, it seems kind of silly to focus mainly on pushing the greatest number of kids toward college. They need real world skills -- that goes for kids everywhere.

 

[Rucker61]

LOL!

These are questions that can be answered very easily.

Ever heard of driver's ed? The standards aint high. It seems you are refusing something similar to qualify for a gun.

That's not the point. The only way these requirements would ever be law is if Democrats controlled the government, and they've demonstrated repeatedly that they are neither knowledgeable about firearms or interested in promoting firearms ownership. What would stop them from creating requirements designed to reduce gun ownership, or limit the number of certified trainers to stifle gun training throughput or create other conditions detrimental to lawful gun ownership. Heller was passed in 2008. It wasn't until last year that such a law in DC was struck down.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...6d35dc-1c49-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html

 

[Rucker61]

Back then most "respectable" towns had a rule that required guns to be turned in to the Sheriff when you came to town. It avoided a lot of trouble.

Name them. It was nowhere near most, and in the case of the Earps it was designed to protect the family businesses from competition. Wyatt Earp enforced it unfairly; he had two brothers that were barkeeps and gamblers who were given permission to carry guns even though they weren't law officers.

 

[Rucker61]

The fact is owning a gun is like rolling the dice. Sometimes you win and sometimes you blow your brains out. The odds are not in your favor I'm afraid. It is your right to gamble.... just don't let your children in the game. Please.

Owning a car is a much bigger gamble. Please don't put your children in cars.

 

[Lursa]

The fact is owning a gun is like rolling the dice. Sometimes you win and sometimes you blow your brains out. The odds are not in your favor I'm afraid. It is your right to gamble.... just don't let your children in the game. Please.

Really?

Millions and millions of gun owners in the US...how many accidental deaths are there?

Now look at vehicle owners. How many accidental deaths there?

 

[Lursa]

LOL!

These are questions that can be answered very easily.

Ever heard of driver's ed? The standards aint high. It seems you are refusing something similar to qualify for a gun.

And the results are poor, about 40,000 dead in car accidents a year. Doesnt seem very successful to me.

Remove suicide and violent gun crimes (which training does NOTHING to prevent) and that leaves only a few thousand accidental deaths.

 

[Lursa]

False equivilence. I never said people should take a test in order to vote. Comparing that to a mandatory saftey training course is like saying that preventing people from yelling "Fire" in a crowded area counts as curtailing rights.
A Simple mandatory course in firearm saftey is a reasonable proposal. Do you know how many people are killed a year because of accidential firearm deaths that could easily have been prevented if said individual had the knowledge to handle their firearm correctly?
Talking endlessly about rights and forgetting that responsibilities are equally as important is to just be idealistic.

Who says most or even all people dont get training? Do you have any stats on that? People grow up with guns, take hunter safety, do shooting sports, train for self-defense, etc etc etc. WHo says they need more? What data do you have that shows the current level of training is not adequate?

And is there some reason you ignored this?

What does mandatory training have to do with reducing gun crime? Or suicide? Nothing, training has nothing to do with those.

What does harm does mandatory training reduce? Accidents to some extent.

Accidental gun deaths are very low in number in the US. And are not a risk to public safety.

 

[jaeger19]

False equivilence. I never said people should take a test in order to vote. Comparing that to a mandatory saftey training course is like saying that preventing people from yelling "Fire" in a crowded area counts as curtailing rights.
A Simple mandatory course in firearm saftey is a reasonable proposal. Do you know how many people are killed a year because of accidential firearm deaths that could easily have been prevented if said individual had the knowledge to handle their firearm correctly?
Talking endlessly about rights and forgetting that responsibilities are equally as important is to just be idealistic.

nope.. actual equivalence.

The same argument was made regarding voting laws requiring literacy.

By the way.. gun owners know the responsibilities of gun ownership.

Lets see.. deaths and injuries to children.. not just accidents but including intentional etc injuries:

Over 7,000 children are hospitalized or killed due to gun violence every year, according to a new study published in the medical journal Pediatrics

hmm.. bathtubs?:

Using data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission from 1990 to 2007, researchers evaluated an estimated 791,200 bathtub- and shower-related injuries during the 18-year study period among children 18 years old and younger who were treated in U.S. emergency departments. That’s an average of 43,600 cases per yea

7,000 injuries from firearms.. (and not just accidental).

43,000 bathtub injuries....!!!!

Lets call for MANDATORY BATHTUB TRAINING!!!.. SCREW firearm safety training... do you realize how many injuries could be prevented by a Mandatory Bathroom Training Course.. before someone can own a bathroom!!!!

Do you see the problem with your argument?

 

[iguanaman]

Really?

Millions and millions of gun owners in the US...how many accidental deaths are there?

Now look at vehicle owners. How many accidental deaths there?

Do you drive to work and collect your pay riding on a gun? It would be tough. Life is full of risks and you get to decide which are worth it to you. I was talking about the risk of suicide anyway. Having a gun in the house increases the risk of death by suicide and homicide. You can ignore if you wish but the data is clear.

Living in a house with a gun increases your odds of death
Guns can kill you in three ways: homicide, suicide, and by accident. Owning a gun or having one readily accessible makes all three more likely. One meta-analysis "found strong evidence for increased odds of suicide among persons with access to firearms compared with those without access and moderate evidence for an attenuated increased odds of homicide victimization when persons with and without access to firearms were compared." The latter finding is stronger for women, a reminder that guns are also a risk factor for domestic violence.

https://www.vox.com/cards/gun-violence-facts/gun-house-death-risk

 

[CLAX1911]

Very good post up until you blamed pretty much all of societies problems on capitalism.

He's a communist. What do you expect.

 

[Lursa]

Do you drive to work and collect your pay with a gun? It would be tough. I was talking about the risk of suicide anyway. Having a gun in the house increases the risk of death by suicide and homicide. You can ignore if you wich but the data is clear.



https://www.vox.com/cards/gun-violence-facts/gun-house-death-risk

I dont really care about suicide as a factor in gun control...it's not a danger to public safety.

It's an individual responsibility and consequence.

Gun accidents in the home dont affect public safety either. Let people live (or die) with their own consequences...it doesnt affect you. (I cant be bothered to go into why that information is mostly BS)

And why does it matter why you're driving? It's choice and it's a risk that most Americans accept without even thinking about it...and yet their chances of death or injury is much much higher.

As a side note, many Western nations do just fine with much less personal driving. It's just a matter of lifestyle choice here in the US too. If it really worried someone, they could choose to live near a job, near public transportation, etc. But...WE just dont care that much...we dont even think about exchanging that convenience for safety.

 

[iguanaman]

I dont really care about suicide as a factor in gun control...it's not a danger to public safety.

It's an individual responsibility and consequence.

Gun accidents in the home dont affect public safety either. Let people live (or die) with their own consequences...it doesnt affect you. (I cant be bothered to go into why that information is mostly BS)

And why does it matter why you're driving? It's choice and it's a risk that most Americans accept without even thinking about it...and yet their chances of death or injury is much much higher.

As a side note, many Western nations do just fine with much less personal driving. It's just a matter of lifestyle choice here in the US too. If it really worried someone, they could choose to live near a job, near public transportation, etc. But...WE just dont care that much...we dont even think about exchanging that convenience for safety.

So suicide is not a public health problem? In what world would that be true? What benefits do you recieve from having a gun that outweighs the increased risk of death?

 

[Lursa]

So suicide is not a public health problem? In what world would that be true? What benefits do you recieve from having a gun that outweighs the increased risk of death?

I said it's not a public safety issue. THere is a difference. A person committing suicide with a gun is not a danger to the public.

And I compete with firearms and have training and continue to train. I have lots of benefits, all of which culminate in my having an extra option for self-defense and home protection. What are my disadvantages? Are you speculating you know my risks and skill set and competency better than I do?

 

[TurtleDude]

Do you drive to work and collect your pay riding on a gun? It would be tough. Life is full of risks and you get to decide which are worth it to you. I was talking about the risk of suicide anyway. Having a gun in the house increases the risk of death by suicide and homicide. You can ignore if you wish but the data is clear.



https://www.vox.com/cards/gun-violence-facts/gun-house-death-risk

David Hemenway-discredited whore of the gun ban movement. his "research" is outcome based. He doesn't factor out things like drug abuse or domestic violence

 

[Absentglare]

David Hemenway-discredited whore of the gun ban movement. his "research" is outcome based. He doesn't factor out things like drug abuse or domestic violence

What's your argument, that drug addicts and wife beaters don't have access to firearms?

 

[Rucker61]

What's your argument, that drug addicts and wife beaters don't have access to firearms?

No, rather that the fact that drug addicts and wife beaters have access to guns doesn't imply that law abiding citizens who own guns suffer from the same level of risks.

Kellermann published a study stating that having a gun in the home led to a higher risk of homicide, only he failed to note in the summary or title that the risk of a gun in the home included guns brought in by assailants and that the risk of homicide due to a gun in the home was less than doing illicit drugs, living alone or renting. You really have to filter out the BS if you expect a study to influence law abiding gun owners.