• 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.

Well, I have things to do besides swap links nobody reads. Laters. :)
Oh that reminds me I have the first four episodes of this season of Game of Thrones to watch!
 
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
Oh distancing yourself from the very studies you presented, interesting...
 
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.

The positive for me is they're fun to shoot, and I enjoy hunting. They're also risky. It's a trade off. I believe in making an informed decision about that trade-off. So I'm interested in the research, and report it as I understand it.

Above I'm asking for a citation because I don't believe the assertion. He said that the studies that show risk of death go up when a gun is brought into the house are wrong because in most cases the murder weapon is brought into the home by someone else. That makes no sense. The studies look at murder rates and suicide rates, and control for households that own guns. Why would gun owning households be more likely to have an intruder come into their home with a gun, and kill them? That makes no sense. And if it's true, then obviously owning a gun for self defense INCREASES the odds than an armed intruder will kill you (or makes your home more attractive to robbers, or at best does nothing to protect your family from murder).

Maybe I'm thinking of this wrong but I'd like to see the evidence for his assertion. He's claimed my studies are BS and dismissed them with an so far unsourced assertion. I'm entitled to a cite.
 
Please present your unbiased one that counters its conclusions ? Meanwhile in an attempt to get back on topic
I just love that you're so embarrassed to be associated with the studies you presented on this thread. My oh my are you trying to deflect and get away so hard :lol:
 
The same reason others distort data and statistics, to promote an agenda.

Why would such an organisation have an anti gun agenda ? I think the more likely reality is that they have a pro life agenda given its members are certainly best placed to witness the consequences of your gun crazy carnage at first hand every day
 
Why would such an organisation have an anti gun agenda ? I think the more likely reality is that they have a pro life agenda given its members are certainly best placed to witness the consequences of your gun crazy carnage at first hand every day

Lots of places have political agendas. As do you, given your propaganda terms here.
 
I just love that you're so embarrassed to be associated with the studies you presented on this thread. My oh my are you trying to deflect and get away so hard :lol:

Why would I be embarrassed given I've backed up my position and you have yet to counter it with more than just subjective assertion and long out of date links ? Try to stay on topic
 
Lots of places have political agendas. As do you, given your propaganda terms here.

Maybe they just have a humanitarian agenda ? Ever consider that ? Only in the US are guns deemed a political issue. Elsewhere in the developed world its a health and safety concern with the US model held up as the perfect example not to follow
 
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.

Actually, no, you made a specific claim. See below.

Second, with a suicide, which gun do you think was used if not for the one in the home? The gun was conjured up by magic?

And for murders, they looked at gun ownership rates. And I explained in the post above the problem I had with the claim. Why would gun owners be at a HIGHER risk of murder from an invader, even if the deaths are due to the criminal bringing his own gun and killing the homeowner? At best it shows that guns in the home are worthless for self defense and at worst would show that having a gun increases the risk of death because pulling it out might mean the robber will kill you in self defense when he'd otherwise flee or just beat you. At any rate, having a gun for self defense still INCREASES the risk of death - whether it's by your own or someone else's gun is not all that relevant to me.

But I'm going to bow out of this discussion. You made a specific claim:

The research cited assumes that if a person was killed and a gun was owned in the home, it was the gun in the home that was responsible for the death. In fact, virtually all of those deaths were due to guns being brought in by criminals getting into the home.

Faulty research.

If you can't back it up, that's fine, but if you're going to deny you made a claim, refuse to provide evidence for it, it then shift the burden back on me, I'll pass on that type of discussion. It's not worth the effort. If you want to have an honest conversation, I'll play along, but I'm not going to deal with that nonsense.
 
Why would such an organisation have an anti gun agenda ? I think the more likely reality is that they have a pro life agenda given its members are certainly best placed to witness the consequences of your gun crazy carnage at first hand every day

A "gun crazy" public is what keeps the government from taking complete control. A disarmed public is at the mercy of their leaders. Quite pathetic. Yes, it opens the door to more violence within that region, but the point stands. One could whine and cry about gun violence, but don't come crying to us again when your public can't defend themselves, once again.
 
Maybe they just have a humanitarian agenda ? Ever consider that ? Only in the US are guns deemed a political issue. Elsewhere in the developed world its a health and safety concern with the US model held up as the perfect example not to follow

Hahaha, that's some good propaganda there. Humanitarian agenda? It's not guns you need to go after, but root behavior in that case. Mental health issues, support, and care for suicides, for instance. Calling for any of that are you? Or are you just going after something that you don't politically agree with and use these deaths as a way to advance your propaganda?
 
A "gun crazy" public is what keeps the government from taking complete control. A disarmed public is at the mercy of their leaders. Quite pathetic. Yes, it opens the door to more violence within that region, but the point stands. One could whine and cry about gun violence, but don't come crying to us again when your public can't defend themselves, once again.

Truly crazy stuff :shock:
 
They didnt charge the cop I mentioned in a previous post.

At least, not until the public complained and contacted the dept. I was one of those people.

In the end, he got a hung jury and they decided not to retry.

Meanwhile, in a similar situation across the state where a 3 yr old got hold of parent's gun, and shot himself, BOTH parents were immediately charged with manslaughter.

The hypocrisy did not sit well.

I do not consider that hypocrisy though, the second one was in where? Yakima I think, last I checked marysville and Yakima were in different counties and those decisions are made by prosecutors who have differing ideas on what should be charged.

IMO it's only hypocrisy if the same DA were in charge in both cases.

Oh yeah and the same jury too because the officer was charged. Btw did he ever get his job back? Because the police guild was going to contest his firing
 
Second, with a suicide, which gun do you think was used if not for the one in the home? The gun was conjured up by magic?
The study doesn't say. It leaves one to guess, and a study should never do that, the viable one's don't. The viable studies include police reports verifying that the serial number on the firearm owned by the victim is the same as the serial number used by the victim to commit suicide. That is proof that it's the same gun; AND a couple of the studies posted even admitted that they didn't know if the guns were the same.

Why would gun owners be at a HIGHER risk of murder from an invader, even if the deaths are due to the criminal bringing his own gun and killing the homeowner?
The possibilities are legion, from the time of day the crime was committed to what the victim was doing.

At best it shows that guns in the home are worthless for self defense and at worst would show that having a gun increases the risk of death because pulling it out might mean the robber will kill you in self defense when he'd otherwise flee or just beat you. At any rate, having a gun for self defense still INCREASES the risk of death - whether it's by your own or someone else's gun is not all that relevant to me.
You have yet to post even a singe credible source which proves that. Don't expect a goddamn thing out of me until you do. You refuse to post good source material yourself, so don't ask another soul to.

But I'm going to bow out of this discussion.
Yup, there it is, run away. You're on a debate site, son, and you're talking to people with skin in the game who care. I've taken apart your every link, your every source, and you run away because you're wrong, you know you're wrong, and you can't deal with it.
 
Last edited:
Truly crazy stuff :shock:

I know right! Almost as crazy as that time Churchill begged the US to help his poor innocent unarmed public :-(

You're welcome ;-)
 
Maybe they just have a humanitarian agenda ? Ever consider that ? Only in the US are guns deemed a political issue. Elsewhere in the developed world its a health and safety concern with the US model held up as the perfect example not to follow

Ah there we go, I was just waiting for it, the old "the rest of the world is laughing at you unsophisticated Americans" argument
 
Maybe they just have a humanitarian agenda ? Ever consider that ? Only in the US are guns deemed a political issue. Elsewhere in the developed world its a health and safety concern with the US model held up as the perfect example not to follow
So you don't know about Russia, or the Czech Republic. Interesting.
 
Ah there we go, I was just waiting for it, the old "the rest of the world is laughing at you unsophisticated Americans" argument
Flogger claims to be from England. Why should we listen to a chain of countries who, combined, are smaller than our eastern seaboard?
 
I do not consider that hypocrisy though, the second one was in where? Yakima I think, last I checked marysville and Yakima were in different counties and those decisions are made by prosecutors who have differing ideas on what should be charged.

IMO it's only hypocrisy if the same DA were in charge in both cases.

Oh yeah and the same jury too because the officer was charged. Btw did he ever get his job back? Because the police guild was going to contest his firing

That's what I was told...different jursidictions.

Still bull****. It was a Hispanic couple vs a cop.
 
Flogger claims to be from England. Why should we listen to a chain of countries who, combined, are smaller than our eastern seaboard?

Eh ????

What does geography have to do with this ? :lamo
 
The study doesn't say. It leaves one to guess, and a study should never do that, the viable one's don't. The viable studies include police reports verifying that the serial number on the firearm owned by the victim is the same as the serial number used by the victim to commit suicide. That is proof that it's the same gun; AND a couple of the studies posted even admitted that they didn't know if the guns were the same.

But no links.... I'll believe it when you start citing those 'viable' studies. With suicides, there is no reason the rate would go up with gun owners if they're using someone else's gun to kill themselves. You're looking for uncertainty when even if you find it can't affect the results.

The possibilities are legion, from the time of day the crime was committed to what the victim was doing.

Why would those variables depend on gun ownership?

You have yet to post even a singe credible source which proves that. Don't expect a goddamn thing out of me until you do. You refuse to post good source material yourself, so don't ask another soul to.

The Accessibility of Firearms and Risk for Suicide and Homicide Victimization Among Household Members: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis | Annals of Internal Medicine

Yup, there it is, run away. You're on a debate site, son, and you're talking to people with skin in the game who care. I've taken apart your every link, your every source, and you run away because you're wrong, you know you're wrong, and you can't deal with it.

Yeah, nice way to omit the reason why I told you I'm bowing out. Proved to be a wise decision - I've already wasted too much time with this response when I knew what kind of debate was to come.
 
Back
Top Bottom