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

[Ten oz]

It is eventually going to be the stance of most reasonable people in the US that 2nd Amendment rights, like all other Constitutional rights, are subject to regulation in the interest of the common good.

In other words, if you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, maybe you can't carry a loaded semiautomatic handgun in there either. If you can't print pamphlets telling lies about your neighbor's sex life and leave them where they are likely to be found, maybe you can't leave firearms lying around either. If your right to freedom from warrantless search and seizure is overcome by visible likelihood of criminal activity, maybe visible carelessness in weapons handling has some similar effect on on your right to keep and bear arms. That kind of thing.

The Constitution is not going to protect you from the legislation of reasonable people - and the unreasonable on the other side are going to have their ear throughout.

If you don't cooperate with these reasonable people, you are going to find yourself subject to regulations written by others - including large fractions of the population who don't know much about guns and don't understand the issues important to you.

 

Great post!!!

 

I have some reservations about the last part. The United States has 5% of the worlds population and over 50% of the world's guns. No other country today or in history has been as flush with firearms yet gun advocates commonly evoke words like tyranny and oppression when debating ANY regulation. The "others" you reference that don't know much or understand the issue are not some group to be distrustful of from the prespective of gun advocates. Those "others" have stood by and cooperated with the status qou which currently allows for regulations (or lack there of) that are as favorable to gun advocates as are possbile.

What is or is not reason exists on a sliding scale. What is reasonable to one culture may not be reasonable to another. It is relative. The United States has the world's biggest military (times 10), the largest prison population, is a world leader in death penalty, and has the most firearms of any other nation. All of which reflect a cultural attutide where the sliding scale favors guns. Any implication that gun advocates need worry about a popular uprising of un-informed/highly motivated anti gun activists is not useful to the conversation. Here in the States not only do we have Stand Your Ground Laws in addition to of self defense laws we allow open care. People walk around with military grade rifles slung over there shoulders. That is where the bar sits for what is reasonable in the United States. The strongest legislation that any elected politician in the States would present is still would/will be weighted toward the pro-gun side of the scale.

Our (USA) view of what is reasonable seems to be that everyone who is not a known criminal or diagnosed mentally ill person under treatment for violent tendencies, should be able to own and have on their person at any and all times all the guns they want. That is the limit to the debate. No talk of a ban, confiscation, firearm limit, firearm tracking, or anything else exists on a legislative level. The only talk centers around closing gun show and gifting loopholes that allow people to get guns without background checks.

[waitforufo]

We know where you stand on this. It's clear you're not an ally of those who want to reduce gun death and violence on both adults and children. That is fine. You are welcome to your opinion. Thank you for sharing it.

 

First, you're welcome. Second, I'm all for reducing gun death and violence. You just can't take my rights from me. You think America is awash in guns. I agree. I just don't have a problem with it. It wouldn't be so if it wasn't the will of the people. We should therefore also be awash in gun safety training too. It would be irresponsible not to do that. Also, those that choose not to take the training, well I'm okay with that as well. They cant say they didn't have the opportunity. See, everybody is free.

 

It is eventually going to be the stance of most reasonable people in the US that 2nd Amendment rights, like all other Constitutional rights, are subject to regulation in the interest of the common good.

In other words, if you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, maybe you can't carry a loaded semiautomatic handgun in there either. If you can't print pamphlets telling lies about your neighbor's sex life and leave them where they are likely to be found, maybe you can't leave firearms lying around either. If your right to freedom from warrantless search and seizure is overcome by visible likelihood of criminal activity, maybe visible carelessness in weapons handling has some similar effect on on your right to keep and bear arms. That kind of thing.

The Constitution is not going to protect you from the legislation of reasonable people - and the unreasonable on the other side are going to have their ear throughout.

If you don't cooperate with these reasonable people, you are going to find yourself subject to regulations written by others - including large fractions of the population who don't know much about guns and don't understand the issues important to you.

 

Shall not be infringed. Besides, I have faith in my fellow Americans.

 

Just a thought

Come on John, women have the right to abortion. It doesn't mater that many people think they are murders and child killers. They have the right. That's how it works in America. The strange thing is that liberals can't see that gun control is their abortion issue. They are not going to win it any more than the conservatives are going to put regulations and restrictions on abortion. They know that, but they need a side show to win favor from a voting block. Welcome to our democratic republic.

[John Cuthber]

 

(1) Shall not be infringed. Besides, I have faith in my fellow Americans.

...

 

(2) They are not going to win it any more than the conservatives are going to put regulations and restrictions on abortion.

...

(1) Even the ones who go on killing sprees?

(2) So you think they can win it then?

Or were you simply not paying attention to the regulations and restrictions on abortion?

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

Even if you hadn't, did you see the list I posted?

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

You just can't take my rights from me. You think America is awash in guns. I agree. I just don't have a problem with it.

 

Kids die by gun nuts, no big deal huh?

 

Thank you for demonstrating that your right to fight an imaginary tyrant supersedes the victim's right to life and liberty.

 

Therein lies the problem.

[overtone]

The strange thing is that liberals can't see that gun control is their abortion issue. They are not going to win it any more than the conservatives are going to put regulations and restrictions on abortion.

But there are regulations and restrictions on abortion, hashed out in political discussions and negotiations all over the US.

 

And had the minority of Americans who favored completely unregulated and unrestricted abortion boycotted all such reason and negotiation, the regulations and restrictions would be onerous products of superstition and self-deceived misogyny, even more than they are - in some places - now.

 

This is a risk you don't want to run, would be my guess. Because the reasonable citizenry of the US is not going to put up with lithium - prescribed unemployed glory-seeking internet-ranting loners stockpiling semi-automatic rifles with 100 round magazines in their mom's basement - and you want to have some say in what they do about it.

Edited October 4, 2015 by overtone

[dimreepr]

First, you're welcome. Second, I'm all for reducing gun death and violence. You just can't take my rights from me. You think America is awash in guns. I agree. I just don't have a problem with it. It wouldn't be so if it wasn't the will of the people. We should therefore also be awash in gun safety training too. It would be irresponsible not to do that. Also, those that choose not to take the training, well I'm okay with that as well. They cant say they didn't have the opportunity. See, everybody is free.

 

Shall not be infringed. Besides, I have faith in my fellow Americans.

 

Come on John, women have the right to abortion. It doesn't mater that many people think they are murders and child killers. They have the right. That's how it works in America. The strange thing is that liberals can't see that gun control is their abortion issue. They are not going to win it any more than the conservatives are going to put regulations and restrictions on abortion. They know that, but they need a side show to win favor from a voting block. Welcome to our democratic republic.

 

 

You gun toting Yosemite Sam’s (Looney Tunes) seem to have, willingly, walked wide eyed into the brainwasher, lead by the corporate money men’s whispers and the fear mongering they espouse; it’s such an easy sell after all, to which only the brave seem immune. Think about it, since the 2^nd amendment was written, when has America, ever, faced or even come close to facing the sort of tyranny you, Sam’s, seem to think is just over the horizon?

 

I pity the fool, who can’t see and meekly follows the tyranny that money creates; you may think you’re free but you’re just a pale imitation of those that kicked us out of your country, I very much doubt they would allow such suffering (slavery aside) to their countrymen.

[iNow]

[waitforufo]

You gun control advocates act like the pro gun rights people have something to worry about. Check out this article.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/

 

It includes two charts.

 

The first one shows that there are more guns than people in the US. Sure there are people that own several guns. Bit there are many who own one or two. These people vote.

 

The second one shows that gun sales are robust. In fact, gun manufactures are likely building a statue to honor our current president due to the increase in gun sales under his two terms.

 

So go ahead and talk up your polls about how people want more gun control. The chart in the article show that the people want firearms, spend money on them. My guess is that they will spend money to keep them as well. They have so far.

[John Cuthber]

You say that like it's a contradiction.

It is perfectly possible to want gun control and also to want a gun.

Especially if you believe the nonsense about self defence.

A quick reminder for those who were not paying attention earlier - there are two sorts of guns-

The ones left out where people (kids in particular but not just kids) can grab hold of them and use them in a hot headed moment (this sort kills lots of people)

 

The ones that are kept locked away and are thus no use whatsoever in defence against an intruder (this sort indirectly kills people because they get people to think the first sort are a good thing)

 

[Today's example of the first sort]

http://wate.com/2015/10/04/8-yr-old-girl-dies-in-white-pine-shooting-police-arrest-11-yr-old-suspect/

Edited October 5, 2015 by John Cuthber

[overtone]

In fact, gun manufactures are likely building a statue to honor our current president due to the increase in gun sales under his two terms.

Which pretty much identifies the wingnuts that the reasonable people are going to step on eventually: racial bigots and paranoids without the common sense God gave a grasshopper. The George Zimmermans of this country. You are getting by without support from reasonable people so far because the other side's loonies are also insupportable - but this is not a stable situation.

 

You gun control advocates act like the pro gun rights people have something to worry about.

If you don't learn to cooperate with the reasonable people, eventually the loonies on the other side will be the ones breaking this jam by cooperating with them - and your interests will be dismissed with contempt, by force, with the backing of the majority of gun owners as well as everyone else. You cannot maintain the current insane situation forever.

 

The ones left out where people (kids in particular but not just kids) can grab hold of them and use them in a hot headed moment (this sort kills lots of people

No, it doesn't, really. It kills too many, but not very many. Edited October 5, 2015 by overtone

[MonDie]

Perhaps we should focus on his motive. His goal was to kill Christians. Dylann Roof was killing Christians too. What do Christians have that drive losers like Chris Mercer and Dylann Roof to murder them?

 

Rumor has it the guy left a note saying Satan would reward him in hell. The digging has unveiled an interest in the occult. Not an atheist.

Edited October 6, 2015 by MonDie

[Ten oz]

You gun control advocates act like the pro gun rights people have something to worry about. Check out this article.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/

 

It includes two charts.

 

The first one shows that there are more guns than people in the US. Sure there are people that own several guns. Bit there are many who own one or two. These people vote.

 

The second one shows that gun sales are robust. In fact, gun manufactures are likely building a statue to honor our current president due to the increase in gun sales under his two terms.

 

So go ahead and talk up your polls about how people want more gun control. The chart in the article show that the people want firearms, spend money on them. My guess is that they will spend money to keep them as well. They have so far.

 

 

 

Back when Tobacco companies were allowed to campaign unchecked cigarette smoking was in the majority and had a cool favorable image. Just because something is popular today, due to massive spending on advertising, doesn't mean in a generation views cannot change. Gun advocates understand this which is why they keep the money/pressure pouring in.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Ten oz

[waitforufo]

 

 

 

Back when Tobacco companies were allowed to campaign unchecked cigarette smoking was in the majority and had a cool favorable image. Just because something is popular today, due to massive spending on advertising, doesn't mean in a generation views cannot change. Gun advocates understand this which is why they keep the money/pressure pouring in.

As I have said many times in this topic, the NRA is good at what it does. It will fight gun control every step of the way. It has broad support from it's membership. While it gets money from corporate interests, much of that money comes from price round ups where purchases are rounded up to the nearest dollar with the change going to the NRA. I would expect the money to keep pouring in. The more gun control is pushed, the more the NRA gets.

 

The more talk of gun control, the more people buy guns.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/september-sees-record-gun-sales/

 

As the number of guns increase, crime goes down. Go figure.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/reasons-decline-support-gun-control-n440101

 

Do states with higher gun control have lower homicide rates? No.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/

[iNow]

As I have said many times in this topic, the NRA is good at what it does. It will fight gun control every step of the way. It has broad support from it's membership. While it gets money from corporate interests, much of that money comes from price round ups where purchases are rounded up to the nearest dollar with the change going to the NRA. I would expect the money to keep pouring in. The more gun control is pushed, the more the NRA gets.

 

The more talk of gun control, the more people buy guns.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/september-sees-record-gun-sales/

You are, of course, quite right. I know this isn't your position, but if you were trying to change things, what do you think would be the best way to successfully do so? It must be more than just throwing money at a problem. Maybe it's an intensity issue? Maybe more single-issue voters are needed? What do you think? I'd be curious to hear your perspective.

As the number of guns increase, crime goes down. Go figure.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/reasons-decline-support-gun-control-n440101

...yet homicides increase. Last I heard, that's a crime, too. Seems like a red herring since homicide (and other related firearm induced deaths) is what we're discussing.

 

Do states with higher gun control have lower homicide rates? No.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/

Which is why we need federal laws (since people can go to neighboring states, purchase their arsenal, then drive back home to use it). Edited October 7, 2015 by iNow

[waitforufo]

You are, of course, quite right. I know this isn't your position, but if you were trying to change things, what do you think would be the best way to successfully do so? It must be more than just throwing money at a problem. Maybe it's an intensity issue? Maybe more single-issue voters are needed? What do you think? I'd be curious to hear your perspective.

Well, unlike you, I can't simply dismiss supreme court rulings that I don't like, so that will make this discussion difficult.

 

I have made one suggestion, which was to provide firearm safety training K through 12. This suggestion is generally panned or ignored, but it would likely do more for your side than you think. Imagine 5 and 6 year old's kids coming home to talk to there mom's about guns. Also, who is going to be doing the training. NEA members? I'm sure they will present an neutral view on guns.

 

Other than that I really can't think of much. People have the right to keep loaded unsecured guns in their homes. My guess however is that most gun accidents, including involving children, are not the result of careless gun storage. I believe it is more likely the result of careless gun handling by adults or juveniles with permission to handle. So even if the guns are safely stored almost all the time, when they are loaded for use, gun accidents occur due to unsafe handling. Safety training would help in such circumstances.

 

Then there are those with psychiatric issues. In every state I have lived, individuals can be easily committed for 72 hour psychiatric observation. This is particularly true if the person is believed to be a danger to themselves or others. There is, unfortunately, social stigma regarding mental health issues. This prevents even doctors and mental health professionals from having patients committed for short term observation or even longer when necessary.

 

Finally, perhaps we should encourage the media to show the actual results of firearms injuries. How many TV shows have you seen where someone gets shot in the shoulder in a gun fight and the next day they are wearing a sling while joking with there friends.

...yet homicides increase. Last I heard, that's a crime, too. Seems like a red herring since homicide is what we're discussing.

Not true.

 

Which is why we need federal laws (since people can go to neighboring states, purchase their arsenal, then drive back home to use it).

There are federal laws restricting the resident of one state purchasing a firearm in another state. The purchase of a handgun can take place in any state, but laws require the seller to ship the firearm to an FFL dealer in the purchasers home state. If a state has passed a law to allow residents to purchase out of state and take possession out of state, it is limited to rifles and shotguns and both states must have an agreement. Such laws were enacted as gun control measures. You are suggesting that gun control laws don't work. I agree. So why have them?

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

Imagine 5 and 6 year old's kids coming home to talk to there mom's about guns.

 

More like... coming home to find out where the guns are hidden.

Or worse yet and more often than not... "Don't let those unionized, government controlled educators take away your rights".

[ydoaPs]

You gun control advocates act like the pro gun rights people have something to worry about. Check out this article.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/

 

It includes two charts.

 

The first one shows that there are more guns than people in the US. Sure there are people that own several guns. Bit there are many who own one or two. These people vote.

 

The second one shows that gun sales are robust. In fact, gun manufactures are likely building a statue to honor our current president due to the increase in gun sales under his two terms.

 

So go ahead and talk up your polls about how people want more gun control. The chart in the article show that the people want firearms, spend money on them. My guess is that they will spend money to keep them as well. They have so far.

 

 

Only 34% of American households have at least one gun. The number of people per household is 2.54, so it's not like you can say that even as much as 34% of Americans own guns. The vast majority of guns are owned by NRA brainwashed nutjobs who horde guns thinking that Obama is going to march his secret Gun Confiscation Force into their homes and take all of the guns away. These people are impulsive, angry, and at risk for mental disorders.

 

The fact is, gun control works. study after study after study after studies show that gun control curbs homicide. More guns means more murder.

 

This isn't a fringe opinion. In fact, the lies pushed by the NRA are fringe. There's quite the consensus in the field that just about everything the NRA has told you about gun control and gun availability is false. At this point, you may as well argue that global warming isn't real or that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

 

Even then, the number of gun owners is decreasing, so you're doubly wrong about the gun ownership and you're wrong about the effectiveness of gun control.

 

Do states with higher gun control have lower homicide rates? No.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/

Actually, yes. It's quite the consensus in the field and there are just tons and tons and tons of studies demonstrating as much. See the links above in this post for a start.

 

In case anyone was wondering, good guys with guns don't actually stop bad guys with guns. No mass shooting has ever been stopped by an armed civilian.

[John Cuthber]

Well, unlike you, I can't simply dismiss supreme court rulings that I don't like, so that will make this discussion difficult.

 

I have goo news for you; you can.

You simply point out that decisions can be overturned, and if it's the "will of the people" they will be overturned.

[Ten oz]

@ Waitforufo, the Homicide rate nationally or locally in any specific area is an ambiguous benchmark. In various debates it is used to argue for or against many things. People compared it against police officer levels, racial demographics, age/gender demographics, economics, some even compare it against the use of lead in gasoline. It is a false dichotomy to pretend society is driven by single factors and not an accumulation of them. Whatever factors you think contribute to mass shootings and gun violence in general be it video games, mental health, drugs, culture, religion, etc the broad avaiability guns is still a contributor. The more something is made available, the easier something is made to have, the more people will have and use that something. It is not complicated.

[MonDie]

The fact is, gun control works. study after study after study after studies show that gun control curbs homicide. More guns means more murder.

 

This isn't a fringe opinion. In fact, the lies pushed by the NRA are fringe. There's quite the consensus in the field that just about everything the NRA has told you about gun control and gun availability is false. At this point, you may as well argue that global warming isn't real or that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

 

Even then, the number of gun owners is decreasing, so you're doubly wrong about the gun ownership and you're wrong about the effectiveness of gun control.

Hello, ydoaPs. Waitforufo linked to an author giving his own analysis of guns laws v total homicides, as opposed to gun ownership v total homicide, which is what you linked to. If you extrapolate that the gun ownership is wholly responsible for the higher homicide rate, you extrapolate that no guns would mean virtually no homicide (see below). However it's only a correlation, and these high-gun areas have equal or even slightly higher non-gun related homicide rates, suggesting that at least some of it is due to a third variable, or even due to people buying guns in response to the homicides, reverse causation. Here's my post on it.

 

The discussion section acknowledges that the study doesn't address causation, and it poses the very same hypothesis. What stood out to me is that gun toting states had higher gun-related and non-gun-related homicides, although the former link was much stronger.

 

I read the research, and Table 3 is the most interesting. They compare the 6 highest states with the 4 lowest states in gun ownership rates. note: The FS/S is a validated proxy for gun ownership that uses the fraction of suicides committed with guns. The gun-high and gun-low states had

53% vs 13% guns-per-household (4:1)

76% vs 33% on the FS/S* (2.3:1)

21,148 vs 7266 homicides (3:1)

15,283 vs 3,668 gun-related homicides (4:1)

5,865 vs 3,598 non-gun-related homicides (1.6:1)

 

Here's the link once more: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/?report=classic

 

I have seen uncredible graphs claiming no relationship between gun ownership and homicide, which contradicts all the credible research I've seen. Clearly there are pro-gun people spreading lies, so it's hard to know what to trust as someone who only wants honest answers.

Edited October 8, 2015 by MonDie

[ydoaPs]

Hello, ydoaPs. Waitforufo linked to an author giving his own analysis of guns laws v total homicides, as opposed to gun ownership v total homicide, which is what you linked to.

You didn't look at all of the links, did you? Come back once you have.

[waitforufo]

Here is the data from the FBI.

 

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-1

 

Crime, including homicides, are declining in the US.

 

During this time, gun control has also been declining. More states permit concealed carry. Also gun sales have been consistently going up.

 

Just facts.

[zapatos]

The vast majority of guns are owned by NRA brainwashed nutjobs who horde guns thinking that Obama is going to march his secret Gun Confiscation Force into their homes and take all of the guns away. These people are impulsive, angry, and at risk for mental disorders.

According to the study you linked to, "The study found that a large number of individuals in the United States self-report patterns of impulsive angry behavior and also possess firearms at home (8.9%) or carry guns outside the home (1.5%)."

 

How do you know this 8.9% of the population owns "the vast majority of the guns".

 

Asserting that "the vast majority of guns are owned by NRA brainwashed nut jobs" without providing solid evidence to support the assertion causes me to question your motives as readily as I question the motives of those on the right who claim there is a secret 'gun confiscation force'.

[MonDie]

You didn't look at all of the links, did you? Come back once you have.

I forgot the Slate article.

The Slate article looks at gun related deaths only, a severe shortcoming. The Washington Post article looks at total homicide.

 

Taking all this data at face value:

- Gun ownership rates are STRONGLY linked with homicide rates regardless of measure used.

- Gun ownership rates linked with gun-related homicide, but non-gun related homicide unchanged.

- Our current gun laws linked with lower gun-related homicides, but not overall homicide, which implies HIGHER non-gun related homicide to compensate.

-This is all state-by-state data.

 

Honestly, I'm baffled. My best explanation is that somebody used misleading data. A more shocking interpretation is that a significant number of gun purchases are made by potentially homicidal people, who remain homicidal regardless of whether they have a gun or what the gun laws are. Thus low-gun states simply have fewer homicidal people, which is reflected in gun ownership rates. It sounds cynical but it's the simplest explanation I think. Maybe gun buyers are lying to us about their true intentions.

Edited October 9, 2015 by MonDie

[iNow]

I have made one suggestion, which was to provide firearm safety training K through 12. So even if the guns are safely stored almost all the time, when they are loaded for use, gun accidents occur due to unsafe handling. Safety training would help in such circumstances. Finally, perhaps we should encourage the media to show the actual results of firearms injuries. How many TV shows have you seen where someone gets shot in the shoulder in a gun fight and the next day they are wearing a sling while joking with there friends.

Thanks for the response. These are all good ideas that I can support. I agree that training and education are important, and I appreciate you working with me to find some common ground. It proves that there is enough overlap in our positions to make at least some progress and realize some improvement.

 

Well, unlike you, I can't simply dismiss supreme court rulings that I don't like, so that will make this discussion difficult.

We seem to have a different understanding of how our system operates. I was always taught that court rulings are sometimes overturned. Is that different than what you have been taught?

 

More specifically, inherent in your argument is the suggestion that court rulings are fixed and final, unchanging and eternal. That's an obvious misconception, though, and fortunately it's an easy one to correct. See, for example, the cases of Adler v. Board of Education (1952), Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), Pace v. Alabama (1883), Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), and among several others Plessy v. Ferguson (1896).

 

"Homicide rates are higher in locations where gun ownership rates are higher." -iNow

Not true.

It very clearly is, though. Your chart refers to new purchase applications, not rate (or even volume) of ownership which are the more relevant metrics. Ydoaps more than handily addressed this core issue with clear consistent data already in his post above, as have I more than once in this thread myself, such as here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81507-every-day-20-us-children-hospitalized-wgun-injury-6-die/?p=875861

 

It really is too bad that this issue is so contentious. The path to making things better is so obvious and (at least outside the realm of politics) so mind numbingly simple.