• 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.

Kentucky: Caroline Sparks :nails

Pennsylvania: Owen Harris :usflag2:

Cleveland: Braylon Robinson. :waiting:

Does that give you a clue as to why there might be a different standard?

:doh

priv·i·lege
ˈpriv(ə)lij/
noun
noun: privilege; plural noun: privileges
1.
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-c...ar-old-sister-and-gun-regulation-w-175-a.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/152632-2-year-old-shoots-self-fathers-gun.html
 
It ends up being revenue generation, and an excuse for road-blocks or stops.

It could have just as easily been encouraged by this law: "if you're not wearing your seat belt, then no one else is liable for any injuries you sustain."

Can't say I've ever seen a road block for anything but DUI stops.

As far as your second statement, wasn't that already the case, even if it wasn't, I suspect that not much would have changed with seat belts or at the very least at the rate it did change. In the mean time we would have suffered tens if not hundreds of thousands of additional deaths and injuries as a result.

I see value in the government enacting laws and policies that result in clear decreases in acute injuries and loss of life if those laws and policies can be demonstrated to show that it accomplishes the goal it sets for itself without undo cost or inconvenience to society. You believe that individuals are responsible for themselves and if a person makes a mistake that's on them (if I've misrepresented you, please correct me). The problem with this mode of thinking is that an individuals mistakes rarely affect only him/ herself.
 
Did I say or imply that? :confused:

Well the difference is that gun ownership is a right. And as such, the bar should be much much higher regarding any laws applied to it.
 
Well the difference is that gun ownership is a right. And as such, the bar should be much much higher regarding any laws applied to it.

I don't necessarily disagree, but is asking owners to secure there weapons setting the bar too high? I think not.
 
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?

How on earth can a child of three pull the trigger of a gun? I thought it needed at least some pressure to make it go off?

The person who is responsible for leaving this gun in a place where children could get to it needs to be arrested and prosecuted.
 
I don't necessarily disagree, but is asking owners to secure there weapons setting the bar too high? I think not.

Nothing wrong with 'asking.' It's legislating that we're talking about.

And it wont make a difference. Laws dont stop irresponsibility and carelessness. Neither does training, as I provided the example of the cop.
 
And it wont make a difference.

Are you suggesting that laws don't matter? Clearly laws do make a difference in more ways than I could possible hope to enumerate here.

Laws don't stop irresponsibility and carelessness.

First, laws do change behavior for most people. Just look at the number of people that stop at red lights even when the consequences of running it (like when no one else is around) are zero, second, while we know that some people will violate laws anyway, doesn't that help determine who is irresponsible and careless, lastly, shouldn't the irresponsible and careless be punished? How can you punish someone for being careless and irresponsible if there isn't a law in place?

Neither does training, as I provided the example of the cop.

I have apparently missed you're example, but in most cases training does matter. Without knowing specifically what you are referring to I'll just say that cops are rarely taught to negotiate, and even fewer are taught when to negotiate. Most rely on offensive pre-emptive tactics. Increasing resources, additional weapons and gear leaves many cops feeling as if the people they are entrusted to protect are the enemy. Most police train in low intensity scenarios where adrenaline, distractions and emotion are NOT in play. Now I'm not saying all, but most. I was with a group that trained police in "continuance of force" techniques and the attitudes of most of the cops I trained was, when considering non-lethal tactics, poor at best. Most saw their sidearm as the ultimate negotiating tool. They are under the false presumption that angry, afraid, drugged, psychotic and otherwise uncooperative people are perfectly rational. The iron is that police suffer from the same kind of irrational behavior as is evidenced almost daily as new video's pop up.

Training does matter, but so does the kinds of training, the amount of training and the conditions under which you train.
 
Are you suggesting that laws don't matter? Clearly laws do make a difference in more ways than I could possible hope to enumerate here.

First, laws do change behavior for most people. Just look at the number of people that stop at red lights even when the consequences of running it (like when no one else is around) are zero, second, while we know that some people will violate laws anyway, doesn't that help determine who is irresponsible and careless, lastly, shouldn't the irresponsible and careless be punished? How can you punish someone for being careless and irresponsible if there isn't a law in place?


I never said laws didnt matter, I said they dont stop carelessness and irresponsibility. Yes they can reduce *some* types of accidents or behavior but then you have to weigh those against overall freedom. I do see the point however where you point out that we cannot use the justice system to punish people for those things if we dont have laws, so I can see value there.
 
Are you suggesting that laws don't matter? Clearly laws do make a difference in more ways than I could possible hope to enumerate here.



First, laws do change behavior for most people. Just look at the number of people that stop at red lights even when the consequences of running it (like when no one else is around) are zero, second, while we know that some people will violate laws anyway, doesn't that help determine who is irresponsible and careless, lastly, shouldn't the irresponsible and careless be punished? How can you punish someone for being careless and irresponsible if there isn't a law in place?



I have apparently missed you're example, but in most cases training does matter. Without knowing specifically what you are referring to I'll just say that cops are rarely taught to negotiate, and even fewer are taught when to negotiate. Most rely on offensive pre-emptive tactics. Increasing resources, additional weapons and gear leaves many cops feeling as if the people they are entrusted to protect are the enemy. Most police train in low intensity scenarios where adrenaline, distractions and emotion are NOT in play. Now I'm not saying all, but most. I was with a group that trained police in "continuance of force" techniques and the attitudes of most of the cops I trained was, when considering non-lethal tactics, poor at best. Most saw their sidearm as the ultimate negotiating tool. They are under the false presumption that angry, afraid, drugged, psychotic and otherwise uncooperative people are perfectly rational. The iron is that police suffer from the same kind of irrational behavior as is evidenced almost daily as new video's pop up.

Training does matter, but so does the kinds of training, the amount of training and the conditions under which you train.

Training has nothing to do with some things. Like wearing seat belts and leaving loaded guns where kids can get them. The example was a local cop who left a loaded gun in the glove compartment with a 7 yr old and a 3 yr old and went into a store. The 7 yr old killed his 3 yr old sister.

IMO it was irresponsible to even leave kids that age alone. And btw, the dept chose not to charge him. It took the public speaking out and contacting them before they did.
 
I never said laws didnt matter, I said they dont stop carelessness and irresponsibility. Yes they can reduce *some* types of accidents or behavior but then you have to weigh those against overall freedom. I do see the point however where you point out that we cannot use the justice system to punish people for those things if we dont have laws, so I can see value there.

Look, I see the value in gun ownership (I own several), I just think the extremes on both sides have poisoned any chances of having a rational conversation. Any time I try to advance what I think are common sense ideas, the pro crowd complains that it's nothing but an attempt to incrementally take away their rights and freedoms claiming the goal is to stip them of their rights entirely. The anti crowd can be just as irrational, in the mean time 3 yo's shoot 1 yo's and neither gets any justice.
 
I have apparently missed you're example, but in most cases training does matter.
Was the mother in OP a cop, for police training to then be an issue we need to discuss?
 
But no links....
Links have been given in the respective posts I've been quoting. Do your due-diligence to keep up or I'll just leave you behind.

Not one source given, by you or flogger, has linked the gun used in homicide with the gun owned by the victim. No even one study. In fact, a few studies even admitted that they couldn't say they were the same gun at all.

You use faulty research and biased reporting agencies to perpetuate your lie. That you cannot argue your position honestly says a lot about your position.
 
Last edited:
Links have been given in the respective posts I've been quoting. Do your due-diligence to keep up or I'll just leave you behind.

Not one source given, by you or flogger, has linked the gun used in homicide with the gun owned by the victim. No even one study. In face, a few studies even admitted that they couldn't say they were the same gun at all.

You use faulty research and biased reporting agencies to perpetuate your lie. That you cannot argue your position honestly says a lot about your position.

I've argued my position honestly, including explaining why this link between gun owner and the gun used to commit suicide or murder really cannot matter. You haven't even had the courtesy to respond to those points.

And you made this statement: In fact, virtually all of those deaths were due to guns being brought in by criminals getting into the home. Link for that is missing.

When you respond to legitimate points and back up your own assertions, then you can start lecturing me about honesty in this discussion.
 
Training has nothing to do with some things. Like wearing seat belts and leaving loaded guns where kids can get them. The example was a local cop who left a loaded gun in the glove compartment with a 7 yr old and a 3 yr old and went into a store. The 7 yr old killed his 3 yr old sister.

IMO it was irresponsible to even leave kids that age alone. And btw, the dept chose not to charge him. It took the public speaking out and contacting them before they did.

I agree, it's more a question of responsibility and the consequences of negligence.

Since everyone (not necessarily you) loves to use cars as the ubiquitous counter to gun ownership, irrisponsibility in a car comes with legal consequences to the owner, even if the driver didn't mean to hurt anyone with their car, negligence is enough to convict someone and punish them. Why doesn't a person deserve to be punished when they are negligent and irresponsible and allow a weapon to fall into the hands of a child??

If I left my car running with my 3 yo unrestrained and my 3 yo managed to get it in gear and he ran over his sister, would I not be negligent and responsible??? Shouldn't I be punished???

The fact that gun ownership is a right must be balanced against what a gun is. It's not "The right to have and blow bubbles", it is the right to have and bare arms". Arms are tools created to project force over ling distances efficiently. Given their ease of use (even a 3 yo can do it!) and the force projected asking for common sense rules I don't think is asking too much.
 
Was the mother in OP a cop, for police training to then be an issue we need to discuss?

Nope, in her case it was pure negligence and for that negligence she should be punished.
 
If that were true then you would never have linked to faulty research.

You're hilarious. What's even funnier is you pick and choose what to address (the irrelevant) and ignore the substantive comments, then lecture others about being unable to make honest arguments.

When are you going to back up this: In fact, virtually all of those deaths were due to guns being brought in by criminals getting into the home.

When are you going to address my comments about why this link between gun used in the crime and the gun owned by the person killed doesn't matter?
 
When are you going to address my comments about why this link between gun used in the crime and the gun owned by the person killed doesn't matter?
The link does matter, if you can't prove that the gun used on the victim is the same gun owned by the victim, then your claim of "likliness" falls apart. Any reserch you use which can't prove the link is faulty.

I'm not spending the time to go into detail on spicific reserch subjects until you prove you're worth the time by using valid reserch for once. If you keep asking I'll just report you for spamming.

Use valid reserch.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why people are talking about police, then.

Ok, honestly, I'm involved in too many gun threads, for the second time in as many day's I've got my threads confused. My bad.
 
Ok, honestly, I'm involved in too many gun threads, for the second time in as many day's I've got my threads confused. My bad.
Just don't do what I did once and submit a post intended for the Basement up here ;)
 
This is absolutely tragic, the death of a child, especially so violently and horrifically is a haunting thought as a father myself.

But you can't legislate against stupidity.

Whoever left that gun where it was should face negligent homicide.

Yep. What he said. ^
 
The link does matter, if you can't prove that the gun used on the victim is the same gun owned by the victim, then your claim of "likliness" falls apart. Any reserch you use which can't prove the link is faulty.

What gun would a person killing himself use? Where would he get this gun and why not use the one he or she owns?

And why would households that own guns be more likely to be invaded by gun wielding murderers, AND be more likely to be killed by gun wielding murderers. I thought having a gun at home protected people from gun wielding murderers, but households with a gun are more likely to have someone in the house murdered. Instead, having a gun at home increases your odds of getting murdered. If the murder weapon isn't the homeowner's gun, then having one doesn't protect anyone, it just makes it more likely an intruder with a gun kills them. Either way, your risk of death goes up.

That's the logical argument. If you care to address it, be my guest.

I'm not spending the time to go into detail on spicific reserch subjects until you prove you're worth the time by using valid reserch for once. If you keep asking I'll just report you for spamming.

LOL - a paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine as is invalid 'reserch.' :roll:

And if you want to report me for spamming, run to the mods for cover, because I ask you to support a specific claim - "In fact, virtually all of those deaths were due to guns being brought in by criminals getting into the home." - suit yourself. I don't need help from the moderators to debate.
 
Back
Top Bottom