john5746 Posted March 22, 2013 Posted March 22, 2013 Meanwhile, how are the people trying to get some reasonable regulations on modern weaponry supposed to respond when people say "You are naive, the people who are proposing this just want to set things up so they can confiscate all our guns"? I mean, they have a point there: quite a few of the people who are trying to get universal background checks and magazine limits and so forth really are doing just that - setting up for a mass banning and confiscation of people's guns.You can argue against any issue with slippery slope. There are always people who want to go to one extreme or another on any issue. Perhaps you have forgotten what COMPROMISE means, since the republicans have destroyed it in politics. What matters is the law or bill at hand. I could say the republicans will never be happy until the rich have all the money and have everyone else as their personal slaves. Doesn't mean that a balanced budget must be avoided. Anyway, the point John was making earlier could be taken more moderately. It is easier to regulate guns than to regulate human behaviour.
John Cuthber Posted March 22, 2013 Posted March 22, 2013 I strongly suspect, that this "No one is going to be killed accidentally by my gun" has been said by someone, shortly before reality showed that it wasn't true. Overtone, I have patience. Eventually people will realise that having a gun doesn't make you safer. It will take longer for some people than for others.
Griffon Posted March 22, 2013 Posted March 22, 2013 (edited) Just a general observation. If one lives in a society in which gun ownership is low it makes sense to keep it that way by having very restrictive laws on gun ownership. This I feel is the situation in Britain. Very few people here own guns or indeed ever come across them in ordinary life. We do not have a 'gun culture' and it would be very unwise to encourage widespread ownership of such an unnecessary and dangerous hazard into our society. One might take the opposite view in a society where there is widespread gun ownership. Edited March 22, 2013 by Griffon 1
Iggy Posted March 22, 2013 Posted March 22, 2013 Some guns are far more dangerous than others, my shotgun is far less dangerous than say an auto pistol, some people are far less dangerous than others. I don't play with my gun, I don't take it out and show it to people or handle it unnecessarily I never chamber a round unless i am going to shoot it. You would be horrified to know how many people treat their guns like toys for adults. No one is going to be killed accidentally by my gun but there are real differences between guns, some are just dangerous others not so much. I think they call what you're starting to do an individual regression analysis. It could be possible, that is, to assign numbers and causal relationships to everything you just said and determine either, "Moontanman is safer with a shotgun versus without one", or the other way around. Like this page says under 'making individual predictions'. I wonder if any regression models exist for gun ownership safety.
John Cuthber Posted March 22, 2013 Posted March 22, 2013 I wonder if any regression models exist for gun ownership safety. I don't know, but here's a data point for you to include. If there are no guns (or no ammunition), the number of people shot falls to zero. If the regression model doesn't go through that point then it's plainly wrong. If you then seek to minimise the number of people who get shot...
Iggy Posted March 22, 2013 Posted March 22, 2013 I don't know, but here's a data point for you to include. If there are no guns (or no ammunition), the number of people shot falls to zero. If the regression model doesn't go through that point then it's plainly wrong. If you then seek to minimise the number of people who get shot... I agree, however minimizing the number of people who get shot isn't the same as Moontanman being safer. I was considering his statement that he is safer with a shotgun rather than without, which may well be true regardless of how well armed the rest of society is.
overtone Posted March 23, 2013 Posted March 23, 2013 (edited) I wonder if any regression models exist for gun ownership safety. No linear regression model can exist for such a situation. Eventually people will realise that having a gun doesn't make you safer. It will take longer for some people than for others. You can then turn to the realization that minor gains in short term personal safety are not the most important factor for most people in the US. Most gun owners are quite safe, after all, as is - the price of acquiring that last marginal gain in immediate personal safety is too high, in most American's estimation. You are talking about a country in which teenagers are routinely expected to obtain driver's licenses, children go swimming for recreation, and cigarettes are sold over the counter. Edited March 23, 2013 by overtone
john5746 Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 http://www.freep.com/article/20130501/NEWS07/305010075/child-shoots-kills-sister-rifle-gift 5 Year old boy kills 2 year old sister with gun given as gift. I bet he gets a shotgun for christmas.
Iggy Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 http://www.freep.com/article/20130501/NEWS07/305010075/child-shoots-kills-sister-rifle-gift 5 Year old boy kills 2 year old sister with gun given as gift. I bet he gets a shotgun for christmas. It was a Chipmunk .22 youth rifle -- made and marketed for kids... It's at 0:45 Chipmunk's website has a section called "kid's corner" with pics of grade school aged kids holding their rifles. They sell 60,000 of them a year. Sick. Absolutely nauseating. 1
imatfaal Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 It was a Chipmunk .22 youth rifle -- made and marketed for kids... //vid snipped It's at 0:45 Chipmunk's website has a section called "kid's corner" with pics of grade school aged kids holding their rifles. They sell 60,000 of them a year. Sick. Absolutely nauseating. Damn. In a Poe's Law sort of way I initially thought that was an Onion-style satire - but it's no joke...
John Cuthber Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 http://www.freep.com/article/20130501/NEWS07/305010075/child-shoots-kills-sister-rifle-gift 5 Year old boy kills 2 year old sister with gun given as gift. I bet he gets a shotgun for christmas. Obviously, this wouldn't have happened if the 2 year old was also armed.
krash661 Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 even tho it maybe customary in some area's , i think the problem was giving a 5 years old a gun with bullets, but i'm not sure.
MonDie Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 One youtube commenter says it's good to teach gun safety early on. I guess that justifies giving the child his own deadly weapon.
john5746 Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 (edited) i think the problem was giving a 5 years old a gun with bullets,In the article, it said they thought it was empty. Quite a few guns go off when being cleaned or otherwise thought to be empty. Always assume a gun is loaded, it is always dangerous. A 5 year old should not have a gun. Dad might hunt with a gun, but he also drinks beer and watches porn. Doesn't mean junior needs to do the same. I would even be against a kid that age having a toy gun. If a kid is to have a toy gun, they need to be able to understand that a real gun isn't a toy. Edited May 1, 2013 by john5746
krash661 Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 In the article, it said they thought it was empty. Quite a few guns go off when being cleaned or otherwise thought to be empty. Always assume a gun is loaded, it is always dangerous. A 5 year old should not have a gun. Dad might hunt with a gun, but he also drinks beer and watches porn. Doesn't mean junior needs to do the same. I would even be against a kid that age having a toy gun. If a kid is to have a toy gun, they need to be able to understand that a real gun isn't a toy. i agree. lol Mondays Assignment: Die
john5746 Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 Obviously, this wouldn't have happened if the 2 year old was also armed.Yes, and why aren't they reporting about the 5 year old's mental health? We need to think about that. Guns don't kill people, mentally deranged, evil people do.
Iggy Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 Obviously, this wouldn't have happened if the 2 year old was also armed. Careful... some people don't know you're kidding
MonDie Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 (edited) 0:35 Mommy: "Pay attention!" Edited May 1, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die
waitforufo Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 (edited) Talk of gun control always produces the opposite of the desired result. So much so the wall street journal recently mentioned that perhaps the gun industry pushes gun control to increase sales. Below are data the wsj published on gun sales in the first three months of the year from 1998 to present. Also Sturm Ruger firearms says they currently have a back order of 2 million guns. http://www.guns.com/2013/05/01/sturm-ruger-firearms-backlog-hits-a-record-breaking-2-million/ Also ammo is in very short supply due to hording by the public. http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/3804304-74/ammunition-million-gun#axzz2S56ooott So an unintended consequence of pushing gun control is economic stimulus. What a way to fix the economy. Edited May 1, 2013 by waitforufo
John Cuthber Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 even tho it maybe customary in some area's , i think the problem was giving a 5 years old a gun with bullets, but i'm not sure. Slave trading was customary in the area I used to live. "It's custom" is a very poor reason to do anything "One youtube commenter says it's good to teach gun safety early on. I guess that justifies giving the child his own deadly weapon." and one of the first rules of gun safety is "don't give a gun to an idiot". I don't mean the kid who couldn't be expected to know better: I mean whoever gave the gun to the kid is an idiot.
krash661 Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 Slave trading was customary in the area I used to live. "It's custom" is a very poor reason to do anything "One youtube commenter says it's good to teach gun safety early on. I guess that justifies giving the child his own deadly weapon." and one of the first rules of gun safety is "don't give a gun to an idiot". I don't mean the kid who couldn't be expected to know better: I mean whoever gave the gun to the kid is an idiot. I agree
john5746 Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 So an unintended consequence of pushing gun control is economic stimulus. What a way to fix the economy.I suppose we should also shut our mouths about Islam extremism and any other issue that might cause people to do stupid things? Great way to run a country. If we can't get reasonable gun laws passed, we could at least stop this "welfare gun" stupidity. We are not charging for the true cost of guns and ammo. As you said, demand is up. Ok, well let's tax the ammo and use that money to pay for extra law enforcement, the military type equipment they need to fight mini-militias and for the victims of gun violence. That will either raise some good money or quell the demand.
waitforufo Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 I suppose we should also shut our mouths about Islam extremism and any other issue that might cause people to do stupid things? Great way to run a country. If we can't get reasonable gun laws passed, we could at least stop this "welfare gun" stupidity. We are not charging for the true cost of guns and ammo. As you said, demand is up. Ok, well let's tax the ammo and use that money to pay for extra law enforcement, the military type equipment they need to fight mini-militias and for the victims of gun violence. That will either raise some good money or quell the demand. Great idea. I'm sure if congress and the president starting pushing such laws gun and ammo sales would go through the roof. Of course they would ultimatlely fail, but economic growth here we come.
MonDie Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 (edited) "One youtube commenter says it's good to teach gun safety early on. I guess that justifies giving the child his own deadly weapon." and one of the first rules of gun safety is "don't give a gun to an idiot". I don't mean the kid who couldn't be expected to know better: I mean whoever gave the gun to the kid is an idiot. Of course, I was implicitly leading others to the absurdity. The child wouldn't need a gun to learn gun safety if he simply didn't have a gun. Great idea. I'm sure if congress and the president starting pushing such laws gun and ammo sales would go through the roof. Of course they would ultimatlely fail, but economic growth here we come. So don't publicize the gun law reforms. Make the reforms involve education rather than restriction, which will inevitably lead to more restrictions being enforced by an educated public. Covert yet effective. Edited May 2, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die
overtone Posted May 2, 2013 Posted May 2, 2013 http://www.freep.com...ster-rifle-gift 5 Year old boy kills 2 year old sister with gun given as gift. I bet he gets a shotgun for christmas. A serious, Federally `enforced attempt at a level of gun control that would have prevented that killing might set off civil war in the US. And it would be justified. The government that would be used to do this on that example of idiotic child raising would be the same one that mandated - mandated - air bags and child safety seats in cars, air bags that would (and did) seriously injure or even kill anyone under 55" tall sitting in the front seat while adding little or no safety to anyone wearing a proper seat belt, child seats that directly contributed to at least half a dozen children being seriously injured or killed by being left in overheating vehicles. I would use the example of lawn mower deaths and injuries in communities that mandate mowed lawns, but such laws are not Federal. The point is: that kind of example is no part of an argument for gun control. Great idea. I'm sure if congress and the president starting pushing such laws gun and ammo sales would go through the roof. That already happened - right after the US elected a black man to the Presidency, ideologically a center-right conservative and an expert in Constitutional law, with no new gun control laws proposed or even suggested by him, gun sales and ammo sales and formation of paramilitary groups organized around firearms boomed. We had ammo shortages on the shelves of my local outdoor stores, some of them within a mile of major ammo manufacturing plants. That was especially true in the States of the former Confederacy and sympatheitc Western territories, already saturated with firearms though they were. If you want some clues as to the mindsets involved here and the politics of this matter, that's maybe one of the clearest. Gun control is tangential.
Recommended Posts