• 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!

Toddler wounds both parents with 1 shot from handgun

flogger said:
Most gun fatalities are entirely intentional where most car fatalities are accidents. Its the intent involved with one and not the other
Click to expand...

Intent means nothing to the dead and injured. Changes absolutely nothing.

We 'accept' cars and their risks...that's about perception and we choose to accept those risks because we 'want our cars.'

People also form perceptions about guns and choose to accept risks, or not.

Everyone would like criminals to not have guns to reduce 'that risk.' We all agree on that (I think). However gun laws have little to do with criminals and crime. They affect the law-abiding.
 
lizzie said:
Well, that does it. Since there are two stupid parents, we must go ahead and disarm everyone else. It's the only logical thing to do.
Click to expand...

They took all the courses and passed. Perhaps the courses are made for idiots to pass?
Lose the rights to carry weapons for a set period- life would be a reasonable start point.
Then charging the parents, convicting them, they can serve their sentence while the other is free. Then change positions.
 
Lursa said:
Intent means nothing to the dead and injured. Changes absolutely nothing.

We 'accept' cars and their risks...that's about perception and we choose to accept those risks because we 'want our cars.'
Click to expand...

A car is not designed to kill and accidents are the price paid for their utility. Whereas guns most certainly are .

People also form perceptions about guns and choose to accept risks, or not.
Click to expand...

Why is adding an additional tens of thousands of intentional gun fatalities to tens of thousands of accidental vehicle fatalities a good thing ?

Everyone would like criminals to not have guns to reduce 'that risk.' We all agree on that (I think). However gun laws have little to do with criminals and crime. They affect the law-abiding.
Click to expand...

It was doubtless via the law abiding that your criminals acquired their guns in the first place. You are addressing the symptoms and not the cause
 
JANFU said:
They took all the courses and passed. Perhaps the courses are made for idiots to pass?
Lose the rights to carry weapons for a set period- life would be a reasonable start point.
Then charging the parents, convicting them, they can serve their sentence while the other is free. Then change positions.
Click to expand...

They are very selective about it. The same week the cop's kid killed his sister with dad's gun, a couple in Yakima were charged in the death of their 3 yr old after they left him in their car and he found a gun under the seat.

It took 2 yrs for them to charge the cop...after the public basically demanded it...and he and wife didnt lose their remaining kid at all.
 
flogger said:
Having a firearm in the home makes you far less safe. The OP being just another example

Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.

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.

43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.

In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.

A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down | Mother Jones

Theres nothing 'heroic' about putting your family at such a risk :roll:
Click to expand...

Your studies though are published by interest groups that want guns restricted

The Philadelphia study for instance, makes no distinction between legally and illegally carry guns. Someone who lives, and a high-end suburban and occasionally carries a handgun and has a concealed handgun license is treated exactly the same as a gangbanger out dealing drugs in contested turf for the purposes of that study. In fact engaging in behavior that is criminal does make you a higher risk for being the victim of a crime

As far as the guns and the home study, all of them harken back to the Kellerman study which is been long discredited. Back in the early 1990s, Dr. Kellerman published a study showing your chances of being killed by a gun, we're 43 times greater when I gun was present in your house. Problem being, his study never distinguish between the gun you won't and the gun that the criminal brought into your house. In fact very few of these studies actually control for the ownership of the gun involved

As far as gun related accidents, that's just common sense. You're more likely to fall down the stairs, if you live in a house with stairs. The actual risk of fatal accidents involving firearms, is so astronomically small that it's not even really worth worrying about
 
flogger said:
I thought it was truly sick that the response to the Sandy Hook massacre was to rush out and empty the shelves of AR15's (the weapon used to do the massacre) in case they got banned

Only in the US I suppose so go figure :(
Click to expand...

Funny thing about that being, no one suggested a ban in the first place people wouldn't of emptied the shelves
 
flogger said:
A car is not designed to kill and accidents are the price paid for their utility. Whereas guns most certainly are .

Why is adding an additional tens of thousands of intentional gun fatalities to tens of thousands of accidental vehicle fatalities acceptable to you ?

It was doubtless via the law abiding that your criminals acquired their guns in the first place. You are addressing the symptoms and not the cause
Click to expand...

It doesnt matter what cars are designed for. You assume we need cars (which many people dont) and that we dont need guns (which many people do.) It's not up to me to tell people they should be taking the bus or walking. Many people in the US do and if cars were restricted...many more would adapt and do so. We COULD curtail deaths/injuries by car *if we chose to.* But we dont.

It's not up to you to tell other people to give up their guns if they want them for self-protection, sport, hunting, or anything else. Who are you to 'know' their circumstances? I am a single female living in a rural area where it takes a long time for cops to arrive. Why should someone else have the right to tell me I cant own and carry a firearm? Who says I dont 'need' it?

I am not responsible for the criminal acts of others. If someone steals my car and kills someone in the commission of a crime with it, I am not responsible for that and I'm not responsible for their theft of my firearms or any crimes they commit with those. Criminals are responsible for their crimes.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Funny thing about that being, no one suggested a ban in the first place people wouldn't of emptied the shelves
Click to expand...

The fact is there was far more concern for the guns than the victims of them said it all frankly :(
 
flogger said:
And I applaud them for that
Click to expand...

So the ends justify the means?

Falsifying and slanting data is morally acceptable?

I prefer the people with guns then in a society that would find that acceptable.
 
flogger said:
The fact is there was far more concern for the guns than the victims of them said it all frankly :(
Click to expand...

Where did you read of a lack of concern for the victims? And how are you comparing that to people reacting to the immediate outcry to restrict gun rights and gun bans?

Are you saying that acting nullified concern?
 
Lursa said:
So the ends justify the means?

Falsifying and slanting data is morally acceptable?

I prefer the people with guns then in a society that would find that acceptable.
Click to expand...

The plain fact is that you are around 40 times more likely to be shot in the US than the UK and as a consequence almost 5 times as likely to be murdered overall. If thats the sort of society you'd 'prefer' then good luck with that :roll:
 
flogger said:
The plain fact is that you are around 40 times more likely to be shot in the US than the UK and as a consequence almost 5 times as likely to be murdered overall. If that is what you'd 'prefer' then good luck with that :roll:
Click to expand...

Absolutely I prefer to live here.

I am in more danger every single day that I am on or near a road from cars (and so are you, guns in the UK or not) than I am from a gun crime or accident. And yet, I choose to accept that risk even tho I dont like it.

The 40 times stuff is about gun crime in high crime risk areas and are mostly gang-related. Such areas get people killed in the UK too at high rates...just not with guns.
 
Threegoofs said:
Well, just travel to a country where the drivers are not required to have a license at all to drive.

Oh, thats right. No nation would allow that. Its crazy to give someone the responsibility for a contraption that kills people on a regular basis without requiring a modicum of safety training.
Click to expand...

That's not how our conversation was going nor what I said.. Shall I repost what I said so you get it right or do you want to re-read it and try again.
 
AJiveMan said:
Guns with children within the area is truly ignorant, leaving a loaded gun lying around is even stupider, guns, for people who don't follow certain safety rules is a problem.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I have never said anything opposing this position.
 
Lursa said:
I am in more danger every single day that I am on or near a road from cars (and so are you, guns in the UK or not) than I am from a gun crime or accident. And yet, I choose to accept that risk even tho I dont like it.
Click to expand...

So why is accepting the additional risk of violent death by firearm a good thing ?

The 40 times stuff is about gun crime in high crime risk areas and are mostly gang-related. Such areas get people killed in the UK too at high rates...just not with guns
Click to expand...

Nope those are national averages

List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
That's not how our conversation was going nor what I said.. Shall I repost what I said so you get it right or do you want to re-read it and try again.
Click to expand...

I think I made my point.

Saying some drivers are bad does not translate into thinking driving tests are worthless.
 
flogger said:
So why is accepting the additional risk of violent death by firearm a good thing ?



Nope those are national averages

List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

That link doesnt remotely prove that what I wrote was wrong. ???? It's broken down at a national level, not by socio-economics or crime. And I dont particularly care about suicides....cruel? I dont think so. Millions of other Americans shouldnt be punished for someone else's mental illness. And it doesnt present a danger to others, more the opposite possibly.

As for your first comment, see my signature below in blue. You may not understand it, not being an American. You assume an additional risk. To whom? Most of us have them to reduce risk to ourselves and families. And most find that works very successfully. Certainly more so than driving ourselves and families in our cars and getting them killed or injured.
 
flogger said:
So why is accepting the additional risk of violent death by firearm a good thing ?



Nope those are national averages

List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
National averages skewed by a handful of violent cities.

If only we let the south secede as they wanted the US would have a comparable murder rate to the UK.

People aren't getting killed in seattle and Minneapolis where gun ownership is easy. Or in Landers Wyoming, or in Portland (main and Oregon) or Derby Line Vermont.

They're getting killed in Chicago, LA, and Wash DC, and in Atlanta, NO, etc
Basically coinciding with poverty in dense urban areas. So the gun violence is clustered whereas gun ownership is spread out. Meaning gun laws are irrelevant in the equation
 
Lursa said:
That link doesnt remotely prove that what I wrote was wrong. ????
Click to expand...

Of course it does

It's broken down at a national level, not by socio-economics or crime. And I dont particularly care about suicides....cruel? I dont think so. Millions of other Americans shouldnt be punished for someone else's mental illness. And it doesnt present a danger to others, more the opposite possibly.
Click to expand...

Such attempted hairsplitting doesn't trump the simple math of this

As for your first comment, see my signature below in blue. You may not understand it, not being an American. You assume an additional risk. To whom? Most of us have them to reduce risk to ourselves and families. And most find that works very successfully. Certainly more so than driving ourselves and families in our cars and getting them killed or injured.
Click to expand...

I'm just curious about why you would unnecessarily choose to put yourself and your family at a considerable additional (and yet wholly avoidable) risk by keeping a firearm near them. I'm assuming you are a gun owner so why would anyone choose to have lets say an AR 15 or an AK 47 in their lives ?
 
EMNofSeattle said:
National averages skewed by a handful of violent cities.

If only we let the south secede as they wanted the US would have a comparable murder rate to the UK.

People aren't getting killed in seattle and Minneapolis where gun ownership is easy. Or in Landers Wyoming, or in Portland (main and Oregon) or Derby Line Vermont.

They're getting killed in Chicago, LA, and Wash DC, and in Atlanta, NO, etc
Basically coinciding with poverty in dense urban areas. So the gun violence is clustered whereas gun ownership is spread out. Meaning gun laws are irrelevant in the equation
Click to expand...

These are national averages they make no distinction between your states and cities some of which are doubtless a lot worse than the stats presented here
 
flogger said:
And I applaud them for that
Click to expand...

For being dishonest and using studies that on purpose used subjective, vague and misleading criteria to arrive at a predetermined conclusion ?

No one deserves an applaud for publishing propaganda.

Appaud those who have the character and courage to be objective and truthful.
 
jamesrage said:
Well then I guess because of a handful of incidences then we should yank the 310 million plus firearms out of the hands of citizens.(sarcasm)
Click to expand...

This is why it is impossible to talk to gun people. To them, there just isn't anything between "private ownership of antitank missiles" and "confiscate every gun and any device that makes loud gun-like noises."
 
Threegoofs said:
I think I made my point.

Saying some drivers are bad does not translate into thinking driving tests are worthless.
Click to expand...

Which had nothing to do with my point and refuted nothing I said. If you want to be dishonest about my position, I'm going to confront you until you get it right. If you're just here to soapbox, don't quote other people's posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom