Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die)

[waitforufo]

So, let's be quite clear about this.

" Those lost lives are the price we pay for keeping all of our rights thereby enabling the rest of our population to achieve their full potential as human beings. Freedom isn't free. Americans have always understood that. "

 

You really think that dead children are not as important as your "right" to carry a gun?

You might want to think carefully about that before you answer, because many people will see an affirmative reply as utterly perverse.

Every now an then, a facebook meme actually nails it.

The intentional killing of children is a crime in the US. The accidental death of any child is a tragedy. The US however does not have an unusually high child accidental death rate. Accidental deaths caused by firearms is one of the lowest causes of accidental child death.

 

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/mailbag/letters-to-the-editor/accidental-gun-deaths-of-children-are-far-down-on-the/article_ad337bbe-7ec4-529a-baa8-6eb6ad53e71e.html

 

Today, the odds are more than a million to one against a child in the U.S. dying in a firearm accident. According to the 2009 data, in reality among all child accidental deaths nationally, firearms were involved in 1.1 percent, compared to motor vehicles (41 percent), suffocation (21 percent), drowning (15 percent), fires (8 percent), pedal cycles (2 percent), poisoning (2 percent), falls (1.9 percent), environmental factors (1.5 percent), and medical mistakes (1 percent). Since the difference between accidental deaths due to medical mistakes (1 percent) and accidental deaths due to firearms (1.1 percent) is only 0.1 percentage points, perhaps we should consider a ban on pediatricians along with the ban they propose on firearms and large-capacity magazines.

 

 

If reducing accidental child deaths is the goal there are many things higher on the list. Back yard swimming pools and pedal cycles for example. So why all the focus on firearms?

 

http://www.momsteam.com/sports/swimming/safety/grim-statistics-on-child-drownings

 

If you are so concerned about accidental deaths of children, why not pick the low hanging fruit first? I have to believe it is because reducing child accidental death is not what your interested in.

 

Trying to return us to a less emotional approach. I have a sincere question.

 

I understand the need to protect liberties. Why, however, do so many people feel that smart / limited regulations are an unacceptable appalling affront to said liberties when they're discussed in context of firearms, but not other freedoms? We all know that our speech can be limited and in some ways regulated. We accept that our practice of religion can be limited and in some ways regulated. Likewise, we have countless examples of our press being limited and in some ways regulated.

 

So, my questions is: Why not our firearms? Why do so many people feel ANY limitations or regulations of guns equates to tyranny and represents only the complete evisceration of freedom, when we don't equally approach discussion of nearly any other item with that mindset (many of those items themselves protected by an earlier amendment, and hence arguably even more important)?

Ah the sirens song. All we need is a few minor adjustments to your rights and the government can bring you an endless stream of sunshine, lolly pops, and rainbows. Your rights only need to be rolled back a bit and before you know it the government will feed, burp and tuck you in bed at night. Think of how happy you will be when those pesky rights are all gone. How do we know you will be happy? Because we will tell you that you are.

“Your paranoid fantasies about fighting a rebellion against a theoretical future fascist government takeover”

 

The arguments moot anyway, given that any authoritarian government, worth its salt, will seek out and eliminate any potential threat to its governance.

Some of us will at least go out with a positive body count ratio.

Edited August 1, 2015 by waitforufo

[dimreepr]

Some of us will at least go out with a positive body count ratio.

 

 

You seem to make a habit of missing the point; do you really imagine you’ll see them coming?

[John Cuthber]

. Accidental deaths caused by firearms is one of the lowest causes of accidental child death.

 

 

If reducing accidental child deaths is the goal there are many things higher on the list. Back yard swimming pools and pedal cycles for example. So why all the focus on firearms?

 

 

One is one too many

Because swimming pools and bikes are not actually designed to kill and because the guns are absolutely unnecessary

 

Did you really not know that?

 

 

re. "Ah the sirens song. All we need is a few minor adjustments to your rights and the government can bring you an endless stream of sunshine, lolly pops, and rainbows. Your rights only need to be rolled back a bit and before you know it the government will feed, burp and tuck you in bed at night. Think of how happy you will be when those pesky rights are all gone. How do we know you will be happy? Because we will tell you that you are. "

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Please don't do that again; it's a breach of rule 4.

[Ten oz]

Trying to return us to a less emotional approach. I have a sincere question.

 

I understand the need to protect liberties. Why, however, do so many people feel that smart / limited regulations are an unacceptable appalling affront to said liberties when they're discussed in context of firearms, but not other freedoms? We all know that our speech can be limited and in some ways regulated. We accept that our practice of religion can be limited and in some ways regulated. Likewise, we have countless examples of our press being limited and in some ways regulated.

 

So, my questions is: Why not our firearms? Why do so many people feel ANY limitations or regulations of guns equates to tyranny and represents only the complete evisceration of freedom, when we don't equally approach discussion of nearly any other item with that mindset (many of those items themselves protected by an earlier amendment, and hence arguably even more important)?

Protesters need a permit to practrice there right to speech, Police can cover your face full of pepper spray if you parctice free speech when they are dealing with you, defendents (innocent until proven guilty) have been bound and gagged in court, and etc are all examples of restrictions to ones right to free speech. I don't even have time to list the many ways the press has been limited.

 

Of course your question was rhetorictal mostly meant to point out the contradiction. The Constitution is like the Bible depending on ones faith they read into what they want. The Founding Fathers themselves envisioned a world very different than the one we have. So much so that much of what is in the constitution is null and void because the concepts addressed no long exist. The Founders wrote that all men were created equal while owning slaves and they preached no taxation without representation but made it so only land owners could vote and slave could be considered 3/5 a person for districting purposes. It seems to me that the rights presented in the Constitution were primarily meant for themselves. They were all peers and that is whom "we" and "the people" covered. Not unlike in religion when "brother", "sister", "child of god", and etc only covers followers of that sect. All people or the people didn't every one. It meant everyone in ear shot. Everyone putting ink on the Constitution.

 

The 2nd Amendment was never about guns. There was not suppose to be standing armies or police forces. States and counties were suppose to be armed as to police and defend themselves independently without federal bureaucracy. To ensure that the powers in PA wouldn't be telling people is SC what to do. It provided independent armed authority. Meant to ensure the ability of communities raise armies and combat war. As standing armies have become impractical to be without and police forces a popular staple within our culture the 2nd amendment has been re-branded as a gun rights protection act. Less about independent community government enforcement & protection and entirely about individuals owning guns specifically. As written the 2nd Amendment is null and void in many aspects. The conditions it was designied for no longer exist. If the gun lobby wants a individual rights to gun protection act they should get their supporting politicians to write and pass one. Otherwise, if they want to treat the 2nd Amendment honestly they would support militias made of any groups of people in a community the right to have all the arms desired to effectively raise an army to rival our standing federal military.

[overtone]

Protesters need a permit to practrice there right to speech,

No, they don't.

 

 

 

 

I don't even have time to list the many ways the press has been limited.

Prior restraint is not one of them.

 

 

 

The Constitution is like the Bible depending on ones faith they read into what they want.

That doesn't excuse blatant attempts to violate it.

 

 

 

 

The 2nd Amendment was never about guns.

Nonsense.

 

 

 

Meant to ensure the ability of communities raise armies and combat war.

Not armies - militia. They had armies then - they referred to millitia.

 

 

 

As written the 2nd Amendment is null and void in many aspects. The conditions it was designied for no longer exist.

They existed during the KKK era, and during the LA and Rodney King riots, and so forth. When, exactly, did they permanently cease to exist?

 

 

 

Otherwise, if they want to treat the 2nd Amendment honestly they would support militias made of any groups of people in a community the right to have all the arms desired to effectively raise an army to rival our standing federal military.

Make up your mind: are things which did not exist when the 2nd amendment was written, such as the standing US military, assumed by it or not?

Or can we interpret the 2nd amendment as referring to the kinds of arms and types of threats that did exist then, and still call ourselves honest?

Edited August 3, 2015 by overtone

[iNow]

Fascinating questions, but ultimately red herrings away from the one at the core. How can we update our current approach to prevent more kids and adults from unnecessarily dying by gun while in parallel respecting liberties of those gun owners who are responsible and safe overall?

[overtone]

 

 

How can we update our current approach to prevent more kids and adults from unnecessarily dying by gun while in parallel respecting liberties of those gun owners who are responsible and safe overall?

 

Several well known possibilities: Revamp the nations drug laws. Spend the money and do the diligence to set up functional and rapid and free background checks at point of sale for all guns, sold anywhere. Establish specific and explicit description of "responsible" gun handling and storage, including penalties for accidental discharge regardless of harm done or circumstances, penalties for carrying a gun with a round in the chamber, trigger locks for handguns in dwellings with children, automatic charges for accidental killings by firearm regardless of "fault", that kind of thing. The stuff 80% of the NRA agrees is sound policy for gun owners.

[iNow]

If there is so much agreement, even from the NRA, and these approaches are as sound as you say, what then has prevented their implementation and enactment? I have to question the validity of your claim given our current lack of progress on moving such legislation.

[overtone]

If there is so much agreement, even from the NRA, and these approaches are as sound as you say, what then has prevented their implementation and enactment? I have to question the validity of your claim given our current lack of progress on moving such legislation.

It's the penalty you pay for dysfunctional polarization, for having two collections of untrustworthy extremists jamming the political flow, for allowing the irrational arguments and bad statistics and appeals to emotion in support of bad law to dominate the discussion, when the matter at hand is a Constitutional right that cannot be simply bulldozed by an avalanche of the naive linking arms with the crazy.

 

There's a similar situation around driving and cars, where the matter at hand is not a right but a privilege - and people do learn general lessons from this. They couldn't prevent the air bags and mandatory seat belt usage and helmet laws, the suspension of driver licenses for nonpayment of child support, the random traffic stops and dogs sent sniffing through cars of people late for work, because driving is a privilege. But the idea of a hidden and ultimately oppressive agenda behind the kinds of arguments advanced for these measures is not a crazy, paranoid fantasy. It's continually illustrated in people's lives.

 

Yes, these people are coming to take away all your guns. What other conclusion can be drawn from hearing lobbyists and public figures and political influencers say the government is justified in "controlling" guns by the need to prevent suicide by gun?

Edited August 3, 2015 by overtone

[Harold Squared]

BTW overtone, I don't fear my neighbors, I fear psychopaths, sociopaths, the desperate, and the delusional, none of my neighbors seem to fit in any of those categories...

Oh yeah, on another note the gun my friend found was found due to a cat dragging in a bunch of baby opossums and turning them loose in the house, the woman thought they were rats and tore her whole house part looking for them and in that effort turning up an old loaded gun behind the couch... Weird things do happen...

When cats are outlawed, only outlaws will have cats.

[StringJunky]

When cats are outlawed, only outlaws will have cats.

When that happens we'll know where the problem is, won't we?

[iNow]

[overtone]

Banning things people really want is almost never a good idea. As the attempts to ban abortion and gay sex and birth control - and various drugs and porn and booze and riding a bicycle with the wind in your hair - clearly show.

[MigL]

I still think Americans are inherently more violent and anti-social than other people/cultures.

It doesn't matter if you take away their guns.

 

Recently hitchBOT made its way across Europe and Canada without incident. Google for details.

But two weeks into its American journey to reach California, it was decapitated and dismembered in Philadelphia.

 

Its funny, but it paints a bleak picture of American society.

 

And why is Harold trying to ban cats ?

[StringJunky]

Strawman. We've been talking about control, not banning.

 

 

...

And why is Harold trying to ban cats ?

He's only got ridicule left to argue with.

[zapatos]

I still think Americans are inherently more violent and anti-social than other people/cultures.

Really? Even more so than people from Chad or Paraguay?

[MigL]

I bet hitchBOT thinks so, zapatos.

Then again he only travelled through Europe and Canada without incident.

And lasted two weeks in the US !

 

He never made it to Chad or Paraguay, so I can't draw any conclusions from the available data.

 

And even though iNow says he's de-dunked this assertion ( I read your links, where exactly ? ), almost every home in Switzerland has a gun in it, because of their military structure. Yet the incidence of gun deaths is way lower. The conclusion I draw is that it is not gun availability that is a contributing factor in the large amount of gun deaths in the US. It could be a contributing factor ( Swiss gun deaths are higher than other European countries, but nowhere near US numbers )but certainly not the major one.

Other factors may be training ( the Swiss males train two weeks per year in para-military training ) and of course, inherent violence of the society.

 

I'm just trying to examine these other factors.

[John Cuthber]

I almost every home in Switzerland has a gun in it, because of their military structure. Yet the incidence of gun deaths is way lower. The conclusion I draw is that it is not gun availability

look who comes second; do you really think that's a coincidence?

[iNow]

And even though iNow says he's de-dunked this assertion ( I read your links, where exactly ? ), almost every home in Switzerland has a gun in it, because of their military structure.

I don't disagree, and I've never argued otherwise. Can you clarify why you've aimed this assertion at me?

 

Also, the Swiss clearly have tighter regulations than the U.S. and do smart things like regulating ammunition, as well. While culture is important, I think claiming US culture is more violent is a cop-out intended to avoid improvement of the current status quo; a cop-out that misses the point that other smart measures can be implemented beyond the feckless regulations currently in place, and all while respecting liberty and offering deference to the 2nd amendment.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

[zapatos]

He never made it to Chad or Paraguay, so I can't draw any conclusions from the available data.

But you did draw conclusions from the available data. You concluded that "Americans are inherently more violent and anti-social than other people/cultures".

[MigL]

I certainly can iNow...

 

Back on page #9 ( long time ago ), my post #166 was followed by your reply, #168.

Go back and re-read them.

This is where I originally made the comparison between the US and Switzerland.

 

And Zapatos, by other people/cultures I obviously mean Europe and Canada, as hitcBOT hadn't travelled to any other continents.

Obviously the 'data' doesn't support conclusions about Chad and Paraguay.

[Lightmeow]

Sorry for jumping in. Something I would like to ask iNow is how he will regulate the criminals that will somehow find a way to obtain weapons illegally. Most of the school shootings I have read about have been done by someone who has obtained a weapon without going through the proper chanels.(Be it a kid stealing the gun from his father or whatever) So how is even more regulation the people that follow the law going to help? It's not the people that buy weapons and register them(in most cases) that kill the kids...

 

This is the one reason why I do not agree with more gun control. It is a good idea in theory, but I do not think it will help at all. The people that follow the law do not need more regulation, its the people that don't follow the law that do, but how are you going to effect people that don't follow the law anyways, by making more laws.

 

I feel this is like someone stealing something and not getting caught. The company trys to get their money back on the stolen product by raiseing their prices. This effects the people that legally buy the product, but not the people who steal it. Someone steals again, and the prices go up. The cycle goes on. I hope that makes sense. Thats how I see it anyways...

[iNow]

I certainly can iNow...

 

Back on page #9 ( long time ago ), my post #166 was followed by your reply, #168.

Go back and re-read them.

This is where I originally made the comparison between the US and Switzerland.

Thanks, but there I was clearly responding to your suggestion that the unparalleled rate of gun death in the U.S. was related to a "Wild West cowboy mentality" issue (I even quoted the part to which I was referring), not the idea that gun ownership rates in Switzerland are high, behind only the United States and Yemen.

 

I then linked to a Harvard study I'd previously shared to emphasize the relevant counterargument, specifically this one:

 

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

<snip>

We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

<snip>

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

<snip>

We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty).

... Which suggests that there are far more parsimonious explanations than "the U.S. Is unique in the world with the level of violence it's culture fosters. It was in that spririt that in that post I also shared these convergent studies to reinforce the point:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619696

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263.full

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15066882

[zapatos]

 

 

And Zapatos, by other people/cultures I obviously mean Europe and Canada, as hitcBOT hadn't travelled to any other continents.

Obviously the 'data' doesn't support conclusions about Chad and Paraguay.

I guess I missed the data that shows Americans are inherently more violent and anti-social than other people/cultures. Would you mind restating it? Or are you suggesting hitchBOT's travails are sufficient data?

[iNow]

.

 

Something I would like to ask iNow is how he will regulate the criminals that will somehow find a way to obtain weapons illegally. Most of the school shootings I have read about have been done by someone who has obtained a weapon without going through the proper chanels.(Be it a kid stealing the gun from his father or whatever) So how is even more regulation the people that follow the law going to help? It's not the people that buy weapons and register them(in most cases) that kill the kids...

I don't need to invent brand new approaches. We can simply look to every other first world country and what they're doing already. Also, this thread is about much more than just school shootings.

 

This is the one reason why I do not agree with more gun control. It is a good idea in theory, but I do not think it will help at all.

And as I've shared with countless others who have suggested similar things here and elsewhere, reality disagrees with you. Evidence consistently shows that restrictions and regulations help.

 

This isn't about making things perfect. It's about making things better.