• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should children be taught the proper use of firearms at an early age?

Should we teach children how to safely handle firearms?

  • Yes

    Votes: 31 67.4%

  • No

    Votes: 15 32.6%
  • Total voters
    46
alphieb said:
Take up your argument with the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Center to Prevent Hand Gun Violence: That is their statistics, but I'm sure you know more then them.
Click to expand...
Why?
YOU are the one making the argument HERE.

70% of violent crime does not involve an assailant with a gun.
How many of those 70% wudl be stopped if each of the victims had a gun?
 
alphieb said:
A fracture is a little less serious than a gun shot blow to the head or chest. Kids are injured in any sport, but how often is it fatal?:confused:
Click to expand...

LOL
Apparently the only "harm" that matters to you is death -- a position you're forced to take because to broaden it to "injury" negates your argument entirely.
 
M14 Shooter said:
Why?
YOU are the one making the argument HERE.

70% of violent crime does not involve an assailant with a gun.
How many of those 70% wudl be stopped if each of the victims had a gun?
Click to expand...

I was simply providing valid statistics from that website. How many drive by shootings would not occur if kids didn't play with guns. Note to M14: Kids shouldn't play with guns.
 
M14 Shooter said:
LOL
Apparently the only "harm" that matters to you is death -- a position you're forced to take because to broaden it to "injury" negates your argument entirely.
Click to expand...

Everybody at one point or other sustains an injury, but gun use is likely to result in death. A fracture can heal. We can't bring people back from the dead.
 
Of course being a Libertarian, if you had it your way there would be no law and order and we would live like they did for a short time in N.O. after Katrina. Its a shame those people had guns.
 
alphieb said:
I was simply providing valid statistics from that website.
Click to expand...
And conveniently ignoring questions relevant to your position.
 
alphieb said:
Everybody at one point or other sustains an injury, but gun use is likely to result in death.
Click to expand...

Really.
Please cite for us the number of gunshot victims and the number of gunshot deaths for 2004. Show how these numbers indicate that it is "likely" that you will die if shot.

Like I said -- you're ignoring ALL injuries because its the only way your point is anything resembling valid.
 
M14 Shooter said:
And conveniently ignoring questions relevant to your position.
Click to expand...

I responded to every question you asked.
 
alphieb said:
I responded to every question you asked.
Click to expand...

You did? Odd - I dont recall seeing the answer to this one:
70% of violent crimes are not committed with a gun.,
How many of those crimes would have been stopped, had the victim been remd with a gun?

Here's another one:
When discussing the danger to children posed by an activity, why is death the only meaningful measure of the risk of said activity?
 
M14 Shooter said:
You did? Odd - I dont recall seeing the answer to this one:
70% of violent crimes are not committed with a gun.,
How many of those crimes would have been stopped, had the victim been remd with a gun?

Here's another one:
When discussing the danger to children posed by an activity, why is death the only meaningful measure of the risk of said activity?
Click to expand...

As far as your percentage, where are you getting your information? At any rate 30% is still a substantial amount.

The second question I already answered, but I will answer it again. Most injuries sustained by activities can be healed. Death is something that cannot be reversed. I figured that would be self explanatory.
 
M14 Shooter said:
Really.
Please cite for us the number of gunshot victims and the number of gunshot deaths for 2004. Show how these numbers indicate that it is "likely" that you will die if shot.

Like I said -- you're ignoring ALL injuries because its the only way your point is anything resembling valid.
Click to expand...

Did you even read the website I already provided?
 
alphieb said:
As far as your percentage, where are you getting your information? At any rate 30% is still a substantial amount.
Click to expand...
2004 Uniform Crime report
The UCR Program collects weapon data for murder, robbery, and aggravated assault offenses. An examination of these data indicated that most violent crime (30.7 percent) involved the use of personal weapons, such as hands, fists, feet, etc. Firearms were used in 26.4 percent and knives or cutting instruments were used in 15.5 percent of violent crime. Other dangerous weapons were used in 27.3 percent of violent offenses.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/index.html

And so:
>70% of violent crimes are not committed with a gun.,
How many of those crimes would have been stopped, had the victim been armed with a gun?


Most injuries sustained by activities can be healed. Death is something that cannot be reversed. I figured that would be self explanatory.
Click to expand...
I see.
So, we have Activity A and Activity B.
1,000,000 kids engage in each,
Activity A sees 1,000,000 non-fatal accidental injurues
Activity B sees one accidental death.

According to your argument, Activity B is more dangerous than Activity A.
 
M14 Shooter said:
2004 Uniform Crime report
The UCR Program collects weapon data for murder, robbery, and aggravated assault offenses. An examination of these data indicated that most violent crime (30.7 percent) involved the use of personal weapons, such as hands, fists, feet, etc. Firearms were used in 26.4 percent and knives or cutting instruments were used in 15.5 percent of violent crime. Other dangerous weapons were used in 27.3 percent of violent offenses.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/index.html

And so:
>70% of violent crimes are not committed with a gun.,
How many of those crimes would have been stopped, had the victim been armed with a gun?



I see.
So, we have Activity A and Activity B.
1,000,000 kids engage in each,
Activity A sees 1,000,000 non-fatal accidental injurues
Activity B sees one accidental death.

According to your argument, Activity B is more dangerous than Activity A.
Click to expand...

Of course it is.

http://caag.state.ca.us
 
As previously posted, I grew up in an area in which every household had some sort of firearm, many of them loaded, and every kid knew how to load and fire a gun by the age of eight. I cannot remember a single accidental gun injury or death in all the years we lived there. None on purpose either.

What makes the difference? I think it is the culture, community values, and the nature of parenting that makes the difference.

Gun violence in the United States has increased as family structures break down, kids are reared in single parent homes with corresponding reduction in intense parenting, and community values break down so that thuggery and violence become normal instead of so rare that they are unthinkable as it was when I grew up.

Trying to reduce the number of guns will only proportionately decrease those in the hands of law abiding citizens and put more of them into the hands of those who use them to commit mayhem.

We should be concentrating on strengthening families and the intensity of parenting to reduce the gun accident and death problem. The guns aren't the problem.
 
Stay tuned....I have to clean my house sometime today.
 
George_Washington said:
Turtledude, I think you've been a little rude to Stace. I want everybody to feel welcome in my thread, conservatives and liberals alike. Who cares if she's younger than you or not? That has nothing to do with anything.
Click to expand...


agreed, I apologize
 
M14 Shooter said:
Why do you think policemen have at least three non-lethal weapons at their disposal?
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as a "non-lethal" weapon. Some are just easier to kill people with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom