• 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!

One-year-old shot dead by 3-year old in Cleveland home.

All developed countries have traffic deaths they are a sad constant of modern life. Gun deaths are not. Why is this extra lethal firearms factor almost absent in other such countries ? There is also the difference between accident and intent too. Firearms deaths are more often than not intentional and not accidental like auto crashes



Because America choose to be an armed society where that power was not monopolized by government.

Just as our society and yours has chosen, has decided, that several thousand children a year will be crushed to a dead pulp in traffic accidents so that the rest of us may have the liberty of zipping down the highway at 70 mph, our society has chosen to tolerate a far smaller number of accidental deaths so that we have the liberty to be armed. Just as we choose not to save several lives a year reducing the pts-per-billion of arsenic in the drinking water, because it would be too expensive.

Don't like it, don't live here.
 
Guns make suicide easier to expedite too

People with access to a gun are three times more likely to commit suicide and almost twice as likely to be the victim of a homicide as people without a firearm available.

Easy Access to Guns Tied to Higher Risk of Suicide, Homicide


Dubious study. Correlation =/= causality. Suicides come in two versions: the semi-fake suicide cry-for-help (person doesn't really want to die, really wants help, usually takes pills), and the determined-to-die suicide, who usually slits the wrists longwise, or hangs their self in private, or shoots their self if a gun can be had. That the latter would be actively deterred by the absence of guns is debateable.

Tying gun ownership with homicide doesn't take into account many factors, such as legality, why the person armed themselves to begin with, and what other high risk activity the person is engaged in (like crime).

No sale sorry.
 
Guns make suicide easier to expedite too

That they do. Though from your own article

Although the review found an association between access to guns and dying from murder or suicide, it did not prove cause-and-effect.

So it seems like you're trying to oversell correlation as causation.
 
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?

It does already. Just as driving a car comes with responsibilities. People do not always live up to their responsibilities and sometimes the results are disastrous. And you're right, gun control no.
 
Who are we supposed to be defending ourselves against that would require us to have such an arsenal. Ze Germans ? , The Zulu's ?, The Mafia ?

Maybe...we won't know until you beg the United States to save you, again.
 
Ah. "You own guns and have been shooting since childhood and not pushing for any kind of ban." Lovely.

That's what all the anti-gunners tell us these days. It's like a script. It gains you not one whit of credibility any more.

It was a statement of fact. We also used to collect bullets out of a dirt bank in a local shooting area when it rains, melt them and make our own wadcutters, and reload pistol ammo. I don't shoot much anymore - would rather fish or bike in my spare time. But if you think I'm lying, then say so. Otherwise take the statement for what it's worth to you, if anything. I'm not losing sleep either way.

So leaving aside no proof on your part that Washington didn't say what he is widely attributed to have said, let's ask what is it YOU DO WANT to do?

For all I know Washington sang Rocky Top in his third inaugural address. There is the same evidence he sang that song as uttered the words you attributed to him, so it's OK that I quote him as the songwriter? LOL. ;)

More gun control I suppose? Just a guess... :roll:

Yeah, your guess is wrong... :roll:

Like I said, I'm not interested in more gun control. And that's why I don't make a habit of posting in the gun forum. More than anything, I can't see how most gun control measures that are possible, such as bans on large magazines, or "assault" rifles will do any good - they're feel good measures given the horse left the barn decades ago. Second, I do value my right to own the several guns I do own. I'd be fine with reasonable restrictions on sale and registration - it's no more scary to me than registering my car and having to take a driver's test before getting a license - but those are issues on the margins of the debate IMO, and bringing them up just serves the interest of gun makers who use fear to sell more guns and ammo. Fact is NRA ought to hire Obama as their permanent lobbyist when he leaves the WH. Just a picture of him sends the skkeeeerreed gun owners into a panic down to the local Walmart to stock up on weapons and ammo. He's sold more guns than any man in U.S. history outside of war time.

At any rate, I'm much more in favor of education and training than "gun control."
 
Last edited:
It was a statement of fact. If you think I'm lying, then say so. Otherwise take the statement for what it's worth to you, if anything. I'm not losing sleep either way.



For all I know Washington sang Rocky Top in his third inaugural address. There is the same evidence he sang that song as uttered the words you attributed to him, so it's OK that I quote him as the songwriter? LOL.



Yeah, your guess is wrong... :roll:

Like I said, I'm not interested in more gun control. And that's why I don't make a habit of posting in the gun forum. More than anything, I can't see how most gun control measures that are possible, such as bans on large magazines, or "assault" rifles will do any good - they're feel good measures given the horse left the barn decades ago. Second, I do value my right to own the several guns I do own. I'd be fine with reasonable restrictions on sale and registration - it's no more scary to me than registering my car and having to take a driver's test before getting a license - but those are issues on the margins of the debate IMO, and bringing them up just serves the interest of gun makers who use fear to sell more guns and ammo. Fact is NRA ought to hire Obama as their permanent lobbyist when he leaves the WH. Just a picture of him sends the skkeeeerreed gun owners into a panic down to the local Walmart to stock up on weapons and ammo.

At any rate, I'm much more in favor of education and training than "gun control."




If I have misjudged you, then you have my apologies. It is true that we seem to have lots of anti-gun people say "oh I own guns, I shoot guns, I don't want to ban guns" and then proceed to advocate, as subtly as they can, for basically every gun control measure under consideration.

If that's not you, I'm sorry if I tarred you with the wrong brush.

I too am strongly in favor of education and training. I've long been an advocate of teaching Gun Safety 101 in High School as a free course.
 
Because America choose to be an armed society where that power was not monopolized by government.

But you are not shooting your government just each other in your tens of thousands every year

Just as our society and yours has chosen, has decided, that several thousand children a year will be crushed to a dead pulp in traffic accidents so that the rest of us may have the liberty of zipping down the highway at 70 mph, our society has chosen to tolerate a far smaller number of accidental deaths so that we have the liberty to be armed. Just as we choose not to save several lives a year reducing the pts-per-billion of arsenic in the drinking water, because it would be too expensive

It appears you choose reckless endangerment of your family over common sense. Firearms in the home are some 7 times more likely to kill a member of the household then any potential intruder. The OP being another sorry example of that.

https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home

Having a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death — and that of your spouse and children.
And it doesn’t matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own.

If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide.

Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a home break-in.

The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000 recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes.
 
But you are not shooting your government just each other in your tens of thousands every year



It appears you choose reckless endangerment of your family over common sense. Firearms in the home are some 7 times more likely to kill a member of the household then any potential intruder. The OP being another sorry example of that.

https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home

Having a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death — and that of your spouse and children.
And it doesn’t matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own.

If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide.

Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a home break-in.

The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000 recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes.


I don't believe your studies. I believe they are politically biased and another example of correlation =/= causality.

My extended family and kin run into the hundreds. We are almost all gun owners. TMK none of us in living memory has ever shot anyone by accident or unlawfully. The only successful suicide I recall was a cousin who took pills. However, some of us have indeed defended our persons or homes with firearms.


In my immediate rural and heavily armed neighborhood (judging by the amount of gunfire I hear on weekends), there have been two instances in the past decade where someone has shot an intruder in their home. TMK in 50 years there have been no accidental shootings. I do not recall any suicides by firearm.


So you slanted statistics and studies mean little to me.
 
Dubious study. Correlation =/= causality. Suicides come in two versions: the semi-fake suicide cry-for-help (person doesn't really want to die, really wants help, usually takes pills), and the determined-to-die suicide, who usually slits the wrists longwise, or hangs their self in private, or shoots their self if a gun can be had. That the latter would be actively deterred by the absence of guns is debateable.

You're not addressing what the study found, which was the suicide rate is higher for gun owners. For that correlation to hold and not be related to access to a gun, and the relative effectiveness of guns as a way to kill yourself, there has to be some other factor unique to gun owners, such as a higher rate of depression or tendency to act impulsively or something.

It makes sense to me - cutting yourself badly enough to kill yourself is difficult. Hanging yourself could be painful and last a long time. Drug overdoses often do not kill the person. With a gun, you just pull a trigger - instant, painless death, with no opportunity for a second thought. I know if any loved one is depressed, I'll remove the guns in the house if I can, and I'll reduce the likelihood he or she will kill themselves according to the data.

Same thing with homicide. We had a story locally yesterday. Couple got into a silly argument, wife pulls out the pistol in the bedside table used for 'protection' and murders hubby. Sure, she could have stabbed him, but she's unlikely to kill him with anything but a firearm. So the gun he bought for protection killed him. That's not unusual, but it usually works the other way, with the man killing the woman.
 
You're not addressing what the study found, which was the suicide rate is higher for gun owners. For that correlation to hold and not be related to access to a gun, and the relative effectiveness of guns as a way to kill yourself, there has to be some other factor unique to gun owners, such as a higher rate of depression or tendency to act impulsively or something.

It makes sense to me - cutting yourself badly enough to kill yourself is difficult. Hanging yourself could be painful and last a long time. Drug overdoses often do not kill the person. With a gun, you just pull a trigger - instant, painless death, with no opportunity for a second thought. I know if any loved one is depressed, I'll remove the guns in the house if I can, and I'll reduce the likelihood he or she will kill themselves according to the data.

Same thing with homicide. We had a story locally yesterday. Couple got into a silly argument, wife pulls out the pistol in the bedside table used for 'protection' and murders hubby. Sure, she could have stabbed him, but she's unlikely to kill him with anything but a firearm. So the gun he bought for protection killed him. That's not unusual, but it usually works the other way, with the man killing the woman.



Ok. Entertaining for the moment there's something to that... What's your solution?
 
I don't believe your studies. I believe they are politically biased and another example of correlation =/= causality.

Well if you don't like it there are a number of other studies sublinked within this article which compound its conclusions. This sort of issue is only political in the US, in every other developed country its a health and safety issue

Guns don't offer protection

My extended family and kin run into the hundreds. We are almost all gun owners. TMK none of us in living memory has ever shot anyone by accident or unlawfully.

.......yet :(

The only successful suicide I recall was a cousin who took pills. However, some of us have indeed defended our persons or homes with firearms.

I take such claims with a large pinch of salt frankly

So you slanted statistics and studies mean little to me.

If you don't want to see something I cannot force you to how ever many studies I might present in defence of my position :(
 
Ok. Entertaining for the moment there's something to that... What's your solution?

For suicides, education and access to mental health services. I think people should know when they choose to own a gun and keep it readily available for protection in the home, the odds are higher that they or a loved one will be killed by THAT gun than by any potentially murderous intruder that can be stopped by having a gun for protection. It's just what the evidence shows in study after study.

I'm aware of the risk, and I accept it, but what I don't do is pretend that having a shotgun at home makes me safer. I know it increases the risk of me or someone in my household dying. So I mitigate that as best I can, and wouldn't consider keeping a loaded weapon anywhere in the house.
 
Well if you don't like it there are a number of other studies sublinked within this article which compound its conclusions. This sort of issue is only political in the US, in every other developed country its a health and safety issue

Guns don't offer protection



.......yet :(



I take such claims with a large pinch of salt frankly



If you don't want to see something I cannot force you to how ever many studies I might present in defence of my position :(



Bud, that pool has been peed in too often. You can find a "studies show blah blah blah" for any position you like. If you can't find one, pay some research group enough money and they'll create one that supports the outcome you want.

Back years ago I used to dig into such studies and spend time sorting through their methodology, raw data and so on. Time and again I found questionable data, questionable sampling, questionable methodologies. Failure to take into account other factors, etc. Frequently I found the study had bee commissioned and paid for by some group with an axe to grind. :D

I don't bother going to all that work anymore.

I used to counter with a gazillion studies proving that firearms ARE useful for protection, etc... but there's little point in that, since you won't believe MY studies any more than vice-versa. ;)


You can TELL me guns don't offer protection. I won't believe you, because being armed has already PROTECTED me and people I know in real life more than once.

You can tell me its raining... if I look out my door and see sunshine and blue skies, I'm not buying it. :)
 
Last edited:
For suicides, education and access to mental health services. I think people should know when they choose to own a gun and keep it readily available for protection in the home, the odds are higher that they or a loved one will be killed by THAT gun than by any potentially murderous intruder that can be stopped by having a gun for protection. It's just what the evidence shows in study after study.

I'm aware of the risk, and I accept it, but what I don't do is pretend that having a shotgun at home makes me safer. I know it increases the risk of me or someone in my household dying. So I mitigate that as best I can, and wouldn't consider keeping a loaded weapon anywhere in the house.


I'm sorry you feel having a shotgun at home makes you less safe.

I don't feel that my shotgun, my five pistols and three rifles make me and mine less safe. None of us are suicidal, and we're all taught from childhood how to handle arms safely.

Given that we had a recent incident where a certain criminal ran off from his victim when I arrived at the scene, and that his hasty flight was almost certainly a result of him knowing I'd be armed and that I would shoot him if need be, I personally feel much better about being armed than I would about being unarmed.
 
Bud, that pool has been peed in too often. You can find a "studies show blah blah blah" for any position you like. If you can't find one, pay some research group enough money and they'll create one that supports the outcome you want.

Back years ago I used to dig into such studies and spend time sorting through their methodology, raw data and so on. Time and again I found questionable data, questionable sampling, questionable methodologies. Failure to take into account other factors, etc. Frequently I found the study had bee commissioned and paid for by some group with an axe to grind. :D

I don't see how that's a reasonable way to go about evaluating evidence - just dismiss it all as irrelevant nonsense. There is an objective reality out there about the relative safety of owning a gun and keeping it at home. There is no way other than a study to determine what that is. It may not matter to you what the evidence shows, but that doesn't excuse disregarding all the best evidence we do have.

I don't bother going to all that work anymore.

I used to counter with a gazillion studies proving that firearms ARE useful for protection, etc... but there's little point in that, since you won't believe MY studies any more than vice-versa. ;)

You can TELL me guns don't offer protection. I won't believe you, because being armed has already PROTECTED me and people I know in real life more than once.

It's not a question about whether guns do offer protection - of course they do on occasion. But what's often the case is someone, for example, scares a burglar out of their home with a gun. OK, that's good, but in almost all cases, a baseball bat or frying pan would work just as well, because few burglars are also cold blooded killers. They just move to the next house when confronted. Other times guns do stop wannabe murderers, but that's also not the question. What the studies seek to answer is whether owning a gun makes you safer or less safe, more or less likely to die as a result of murder or suicide. The evidence shows guns ARE often used for self defense but INCREASE your odds of dying. They're totally consistent findings.
 
Bud, that pool has been peed in too often. You can find a "studies show blah blah blah" for any position you like. If you can't find one, pay some research group enough money and they'll create one that supports the outcome you want.
If their conclusions are all in error then I'm sure you will be able to illustrate that ?

Back years ago I used to dig into such studies and spend time sorting through their methodology, raw data and so on. Time and again I found questionable data, questionable sampling, questionable methodologies. Failure to take into account other factors, etc. Frequently I found the study had bee commissioned and paid for by some group with an axe to grind. :D

Forget the studies then and just deal with the math instead. In the US you are over 40 times more likely to be shot than in the UK leading to a five times higher overall murder rate per capita. Your police forces kill on average over 100 suspects per month nearly all using firearms. Ours have killed just 52 suspects in over a century. You lost 126 police officers in the line of duty last year . We lost ..... none. What do you think is the essential variable that leads to such discrepancies within our respective societies ? Societies that are otherwise fairly similar

You can TELL me guns don't offer protection. I won't believe you, because being armed has already PROTECTED me and people I know in real life more than once.

So you claim ......hmmm :roll:
 
Sorry, but risk level has no effect on rights.
 
I don't see how that's a reasonable way to go about evaluating evidence - just dismiss it all as irrelevant nonsense. There is an objective reality out there about the relative safety of owning a gun and keeping it at home. There is no way other than a study to determine what that is. It may not matter to you what the evidence shows, but that doesn't excuse disregarding all the best evidence we do have.



It's not a question about whether guns do offer protection - of course they do on occasion. But what's often the case is someone, for example, scares a burglar out of their home with a gun. OK, that's good, but in almost all cases, a baseball bat or frying pan would work just as well, because few burglars are also cold blooded killers. They just move to the next house when confronted. Other times guns do stop wannabe murderers, but that's also not the question. What the studies seek to answer is whether owning a gun makes you safer or less safe, more or less likely to die as a result of murder or suicide. The evidence shows guns ARE often used for self defense but INCREASE your odds of dying. They're totally consistent findings.



Yes they are inconsistent, that's why I don't pay them much heed anymore.

There's a DOJ study that says you're more likely to survive a violent crime by resisting than not, and that resisting with a firearm is more effective than unarmed or with lesser weapons.

That seems to contradict those other studies to some degree.

Then there's Kleck and others whose studies say DGUs (defensive gun uses) number from the hundreds of thousands to possibly over a million annually, in most cases with no shots fired. Anti-gunners tend to dismiss and poo-poo Kleck and the gazillion other studies of this type on the basis of data and method etc, so I guess I can do the same for THEIR studies. :)


As for ball bats and frying pans, personally I feel a lot better confronting an intruder with a .45 in hand than any of those. Figure he's more likely to bolt too... and some intruders are not burglars, btw. Some of them will laugh at Joe Average with a ball bat or Jane Average with a frying pan...
 
And far more children in the US die or are injured from gunshot than in the rest of the developed countries in world combined
That's what happens when the "child" is in a gang and fights other gangs, fights cops, and commits violent crimes.

Guns don't offer protection
Biased source, try again.
 
I'm sorry you feel having a shotgun at home makes you less safe.

I just trust the evidence. The odds of me dying from the hands of an intruder are roughly zero. A good friend of mine blew off the back of his head with his shotgun. That's more likely than being murdered by an intruder.

I don't feel that my shotgun, my five pistols and three rifles make me and mine less safe. None of us are suicidal, and we're all taught from childhood how to handle arms safely.

Family often don't know their family member is suicidal until they kill themselves. My friend was successful, two great kids, great wife, great job. I'd seen him 10 times in the previous six months. No one had a clue what he was going through until his wife left for the store one Saturday, and came back an hour later and found his brains splattered all over the study.

Given that we had a recent incident where a certain criminal ran off from his victim when I arrived at the scene, and that his hasty flight was almost certainly a result of him knowing I'd be armed and that I would shoot him if need be, I personally feel much better about being armed than I would about being unarmed.

That's fine. I don't feel any safer with a loaded weapon within easy reach so don't ever do it - the only time my guns are loaded are on the range or in the field. We make our own choices.
 
So you claim ......hmmm :roll:



If you're going to imply I am a liar, then I have no interest in conversing with you. I have questioned your studies, but not your personal honesty or sincerity. If you cannot return the same courtesy, then I don't care for your company.
 
I don't see how that's a reasonable way to go about evaluating evidence - just dismiss it all as irrelevant nonsense. There is an objective reality out there about the relative safety of owning a gun and keeping it at home. There is no way other than a study to determine what that is. It may not matter to you what the evidence shows, but that doesn't excuse disregarding all the best evidence we do have.

It's not a question about whether guns do offer protection - of course they do on occasion. But what's often the case is someone, for example, scares a burglar out of their home with a gun. OK, that's good, but in almost all cases, a baseball bat or frying pan would work just as well, because few burglars are also cold blooded killers. They just move to the next house when confronted. Other times guns do stop wannabe murderers, but that's also not the question. What the studies seek to answer is whether owning a gun makes you safer or less safe, more or less likely to die as a result of murder or suicide. The evidence shows guns ARE often used for self defense but INCREASE your odds of dying. They're totally consistent findings.
Here's the thing...even if you and I shake hands and agree that having a gun in the home increases risk, I'm still going to support private gun ownership with as little restriction as possible. The child deaths by guns that you're trying to point to...even if I accept your argument I'm still going to see those deaths as an acceptable loss in exchange for the freedom and protection.

Some number of children are going to die from electrocution this year, that doesn't mean we need more electricity code.

That's the price you pay for living in the modern world.
 
I just trust the evidence....
Family often don't know their family member is suicidal until they kill themselves....


I trust my eyes and the experience of 50 years of life. I trust my judgment about the people living under my roof. I trust the fact that I've needed to be armed several times already in my life suggests it may happen again.



That's fine. I don't feel any safer with a loaded weapon within easy reach so don't ever do it - the only time my guns are loaded are on the range or in the field. We make our own choices.


Yes sir we do, that is called Liberty. I would not dream of telling you that you HAD to have a loaded gun in your home. I tend to appreciate the same courtesy about my own choices from other free citizens of this great nation. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom