• 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.

Please provide a citation for that evidence.


Are you SURE you're not anti-gun? You haven't said a single positive thing about gun ownership in this thread, that I noticed... but plenty of negative.

No, you're not advocating any specific legislation just the now, but every post in the thread has been negative towards gun ownership.
 
Please provide a citation for that evidence.
You're the one with the claim, so the burden of proof is on you. You want to say that a gun in the home increases risk, so prove the gun which caused the injury is the same gun which was kept in the home. That's a cornerstone of their claims so it should be very easy to find. I looked and didn't find it. Prove me wrong by quoting that potion of the study.
 
Causes of suicide:


Owning a firearm doesn't increase the chance of suicide, and no owning a firearm doesn't lower the chance of suicide.

I've already posted multiple studies that show otherwise. Here are more

Gun access tied to greater suicide, murder risk: study | Reuters
Access to Guns Increases Risk of Suicide, Homicide | UC San Francisco
Guns & Suicide: The Hidden Toll | Magazine Features | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Magazine Features

A gun in the home trebles the risk of a successful suicide attempt
 
I'm sorry you feel having a shotgun at home makes you less safe.

.

I dont get that. I wouldnt have my house gun if it didnt make me feel safer. I have examined the pros and cons, and received training and worked out scenarios and a safety plan.

I dont have any other people in my household but there are plenty of safety plans and even alternatives to a gun if you dont want to commit properly to the responsibilities of gun ownership.
 
I wonder why "People will be held accountable for this tragedy", while other tragedies are just considered "accidents".

Accident:


Accident:


Seeking to arrest:


The word accident doesn't even appear in the OPs article or headline.

One of these things is not like the others :thinking

TX law explains some of those questions.

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
 
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. .

What? How would you know? Are you asking them? Am I supposed to 'wait and find out' if they are going to kill me?

Of course, a good indicator will be how they deal with my dogs.....
 
I did. The research doesn't prove that the gun which caused the death is the same gun which was kept in the home. The research claimed they were the same but nowhere in that study do yo find their proof. That's the fault, they made a claim without proof.

You want me to quote something, but that there's no proof to be quoted is the very thing which is faulty.

So its just your opinion then. Thanks for your candour :cool:
 
I dont get that. I wouldnt have my house gun if it didnt make me feel safer. I have examined the pros and cons, and received training and worked out scenarios and a safety plan.

I dont have any other people in my household but there are plenty of safety plans and even alternatives to a gun if you dont want to commit properly to the responsibilities of gun ownership.


Yeah, I hate to question someone's sincerity but that is just a weird sort of statement, that he thinks his having a shotgun at home (which he says is kept unloaded) makes it more likely he or his family will be shot. You'd think if he really believed that he'd get rid of it.

But I hate to question someone's word without good reason...
 
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.

Whatever else between us Jerry, I LOVE this, esp the bold. And I will be reusing it.

So sue me! :2razz:
 



"I'm still ignoring your studies in favor of my own, since mine are correct and yours are not."
 
Dr Ellis might need to take that up that discrepancy with your American Academy of Pediatrics then :cool:


Or maybe the AAP's study is biased. Or they've assembled their data in a manner that supports the conclusions they preferred. Wouldn't be the first time.


"There are lies; there are damned lies; and then there are statistics..."
 
I've already posted multiple studies that show otherwise. Here are more

Gun access tied to greater suicide, murder risk: study | Reuters
This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The study cited did not reach the conclusion the news article is presenting. Here is that study, here is it's conclusion:
Hospitalization for a firearm-related injury is associated with a heightened risk for subsequent violent victimization or crime perpetration. Further research at the intersection of clinical care, the criminal justice system, and public health to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions delivered to survivors of firearm-related injury is warranted.

The study is saying if you were a victim of a gunshot then you're likely going to be a victim of violence again. This study said nothing about suicide other than suicide by gun is more likely to succeed. My source did not contradict this. My source said if you're denied a gun you'll just find some other way to kill yourself.
 
Again, should we not have enacted seat belt laws and chalked it up to failure to be responsible?

Who's rights were being infringed on with seat belt laws?
 
Well, I have things to do besides swap links nobody reads. Laters. :)
 
6 years old means they're irrelevant right? After all nothing that happened more than 6 years ago matters.

Times change as do crime stats. The UK currently enjoys the lowest overall crime figures since records began and our gun laws have doubtless contributed in some small way to that . I think thats pretty significant even if you don't

I didn't say you didn't have some excuse why not. I just said you ignored them as irrelevant, because you don't WANT to consider stats that don't support your position.

His stats were out of date. I updated them. Of more relevence is the fact that our already very low gun crime continues to fall as the few guns left in circulation are steadily removed.
 
[B said:
shrubnose[/B];1064527447]

Same should happen to the parents that leave their kids to die in hot cars right?

How about the parents whose kid drowns in their pool?



This thread is about kids killed by guns.

If you want to start threads about those other topics, get after it. :roll:
 
This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The study cited did not reach the conclusion the news article is presenting. Here is that study, here is it's conclusion:


The study is saying if you were a victim of a gunshot then you're likely going to be a victim of violence again. This study said nothing about suicide other than suicide by gun is more likely to succeed. My source did not contradict this. My source said if you're denied a gun you'll just find some other way to kill yourself.

Suicide is three times more likely to be attempted and to be successful with a gun in the house. I didn't write the studies I just presented them. By all means feel free to take up their conclusions with their authors
 
This thread is about kids killed by guns.

If you want to start threads about those other topics, get after it. :roll:

The comparison is a very good parallel. Your reaction just demonstrates the common prejudice about guns, rather than actual child safety (or parental responsibility).
 
I've already posted multiple studies that show otherwise. Here are more...

Access to Guns Increases Risk of Suicide, Homicide | UC San Francisco....
Another perfect example. From your link:
Since not all of the studies assessed whether victims had firearms in their homes, the meta-analysis does not draw conclusions about the associations between suicide or homicide and the location of the firearms, but merely whether victims had access to them.

So if a woman keeps a hunting rifle at home in a safe, she "has access to a gun", and if she's the victim of a gunshot while out on the town, no where near her own gun, this study admits that they just count her in their conclusion. They admit that they couldn't prove that the gun the victim owned is the same gun which killed the victim, they admit even further that the gun may not have been in the area when the victim was shot.

Faulty research. Biased source.
 
Last edited:
Or maybe the AAP's study is biased. Or they've assembled their data in a manner that supports the conclusions they preferred. Wouldn't be the first time.
"There are lies; there are damned lies; and then there are statistics..."

Why would they do this ?
 
Back
Top Bottom