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

[MonDie]

I can't study. My hypothesis is too depressing.

[John Cuthber]

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.

 

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).

 

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.

Lets hope that, since two of us have pointed out that the legal rulings can be overturned and that the constitution can be amended, and those amendments can be overturned, people will stop saying "You can't control guns because of what it says on a piece of paper".

That would make this sort of discussion much quicker and easier.

[MonDie]

Thank you iNow from page 3. A law-by-law analysis. Most background check laws only showed a modest ~5% association, except restraining orders (~13%) and fugitive status (~20%).

 

"It does not appear that reductions in firearm deaths are offset by increases in non-firearm violent deaths."

 

State background checks for gun purchase and firearm deaths: an exploratory study.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22850436

Edited October 9, 2015 by MonDie

[iNow]

There's been another. This time at Northern Arizona University: http://www.vox.com/2015/10/9/9486355/northern-arizona-university-school-shooting

[MonDie]

Checking for fugitive status should be a no-brainer. Prisoners can't have guns, neither should fugitives.

[dimreepr]

There's been another. This time at Northern Arizona University: http://www.vox.com/2015/10/9/9486355/northern-arizona-university-school-shooting

 

 

It’s starting to look like a fashion meme, of the worse kind. The damn will break, the pressure is mounting.

[overtone]

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.

Nothing shocking about that, as a partial explanation One would presume that factor in operation, actually - the alternative would be a population of homicide planners (drug war participants, say, or domestic murder/suicides) who did not think of using guns.

 

 

 

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.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." Edited October 10, 2015 by overtone

[iNow]

There's been another. This time at Northern Arizona University: http://www.vox.com/2015/10/9/9486355/northern-arizona-university-school-shooting

Turns out there were two mass shootings today. After the above at a university in Arizona, there was another at a university in Texas.

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/9/9489599/school-shooting-gun-violence

 

Problematic in and of themselves, another problem with these mass events and school shootings is that they distract us from the broader fact that there are roughly 90 gun related homicides each day, but they simply don't get the attention needed to facilitate change.

[Moontanman]

Without reading all 37 pages of this post I would like to suggest a firearms licence similar to a drivers licence, this seems quite reasonable, carrying or even owning a gun should at least be taken as seriously as driving a car. I have guns and would not have a problem with it, possibly the ones who would not want this are afraid they wouldn't pass. Seriously, a gun is at least as dangerous as a car although I think the age limit for owning a gun should be higher than 16.

 

But then you have to take into consideration the fact that most (illegal) gun deaths are perpetrated by people who do not own the gun either officially as in a family member or the thousands if not millions of illegal guns in circulation. Stats say 223,000,000 guns are in circulation in the US http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/more/facts.html

[ydoaPs]

Turns out there were two mass shootings today. After the above at a university in Arizona, there was another at a university in Texas.

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/9/9489599/school-shooting-gun-violence

 

Problematic in and of themselves, another problem with these mass events and school shootings is that they distract us from the broader fact that there are roughly 90 gun related homicides each day, but they simply don't get the attention needed to facilitate change.

You may want to follow the Angie Project on Twitter.

[iNow]

I would need much more whiskey in my house than that to which I currently have access.

[StringJunky]

I would need much more whiskey in my house than that to which I currently have access.

...and tranquillisers!

 

Even one of the lesser stories that don't make the headlines in the US would keep our UK news teams busy for days.

 

It's almost laughable how many people are affected by guns in the US in a typical day, for its insanity and disregard.

Edited October 10, 2015 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

As I have previously posted I think gun locks and gun safes should be a requirement. Simply pass a law requiring gun locks on all firearms when not "in use" by the owner and gun safes in any home containing more than X number on firearms. This requirement would be enforceable in the event that a firearm is used in a crime. If you own a firearm that winds up being used in a crime and an investigation shows that you had not used the proper gun locks and safes then you should be charged as a co-conspiractor to the crime the firearm was involved in. Such a simple law would not infringe on the number of guns a person has the right own. The only caveat to iron out is defining "in use".

 

Additionally it is almost 2016. Technology can surely help us. Why not install electronic gun locks that can be control remotely? Example: A parent of a child with life long mental health issues wakes up one morning and notice that their child is not home and that their firearm is missing; so they they enter a code on their smart phone and whalla the firearm is disabled. We should not limit our ideas to background checks and assualt weapon bans. When cars were killing drivers we looked to technology: shatter proof glass, crumple zones, seat belts, air bags, anti-lock brakes, and etc, etc, etc to make vehicles safer while still being just as available to the public. Surely we can do the same for firearms?

[John Cuthber]

As I have previously posted I think gun locks and gun safes should be a requirement. Simply pass a law requiring gun locks on all firearms when not "in use" by the owner and gun safes in any home containing more than X number on firearms. This requirement would be enforceable in the event that a firearm is used in a crime. If you own a firearm that winds up being used in a crime and an investigation shows that you had not used the proper gun locks and safes then you should be charged as a co-conspiractor to the crime the firearm was involved in. Such a simple law would not infringe on the number of guns a person has the right own. The only caveat to iron out is defining "in use".

 

Additionally it is almost 2016. Technology can surely help us. Why not install electronic gun locks that can be control remotely? Example: A parent of a child with life long mental health issues wakes up one morning and notice that their child is not home and that their firearm is missing; so they they enter a code on their smart phone and whalla the firearm is disabled. We should not limit our ideas to background checks and assualt weapon bans. When cars were killing drivers we looked to technology: shatter proof glass, crumple zones, seat belts, air bags, anti-lock brakes, and etc, etc, etc to make vehicles safer while still being just as available to the public. Surely we can do the same for firearms?

On a related note, perhaps we should require gun owners to have insurance- much the same as with car ownership.

[Ten oz]

On a related note, perhaps we should require gun owners to have insurance- much the same as with car ownership.

I have heard that discussed. I don't really understand the correlation between insurance and safety though? It is safety requirements like seat belts and shatter proof glass that have made cars safer. Locking up guns would reduce the number that are stolen or wind up discovered by a child in the proverbial closet shoe box. I suppose applications for insurance would mean better back ground checks; I honestly don't feel that is enough. Firearm access needs to be stymied and gun advocates are not about to give up a single firearm. We already have hundreds of millions of firearms in circulation. Firearm insurance doesn't effect that or change the access to those hundreds of millions. Getting them locked up and in positive control of their owners would be a huge step forward when you consider that hundreds of thousands wind up stolen per year. I also believe passing a law requiring insurance would be a lot harder to get passed. Insurance will be labeled by conservatives as a tax. Taxes are right up there with the 2nd Admendment in terms of hot bottom issues conservatives go ballistic over. The beauty of a gun lock/safe storage law is that it would not be intrusive. Only if a firearm owner's firearm is used in a crime would the government investigate whether or not the storage laws had been violated. This would enable firearm owners to conform to the rules at their own pace and decrease the cries of government tyranny that always seem to work there way into these conversations.

[MonDie]

It's all been said already.

 

Another option is taking ballistic fingerprints of all guns sold so that bullets can be traced to shooters. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_fingerprinting

 

Ballistic fingerprinting techniques are based on the principle that all firearms have inevitable variations due to marks left by the machining process, leaving shallow impressions in the metal which are rarely completely polished out. Also, normal wear and tear from use can cause each firearm to acquire distinct characteristics over time.

 

[...]

 

StriationsEdit

 

When a bullet is fired through a rifled barrel, the raised and lowered spirals of the rifling etch fine grooves called "striations" into the bullet. These can be matched with the barrel through which the bullet was fired. Examiners distinguish between striations common to all guns of a particular type ("class characteristics") and those unique to a particular gun ("individual characteristics").

[overtone]

Simply pass a law requiring gun locks on all firearms when not "in use" by the owner

Any gun kept even partly for self defense benefits is almost always in use.

 

 

On a related note, perhaps we should require gun owners to have insurance- much the same as with car ownership.

Not in the US - at least, not until after some minimum number of weapons.

 

I also believe passing a law requiring insurance would be a lot harder to get passed. Insurance will be labeled by conservatives as a tax.

By some. If it's a significant expense it will be squelched by others as a violation of the Constitution. You can't legislate a cost barrier for a Constitutional right - some minimum number of guns have to get by for free or close to it.

 

The beauty of a gun lock/safe storage law is that it would not be intrusive. Only if a firearm owner's firearm is used in a crime would the government investigate whether or not the storage laws had been violated

That sounds good, but by now nobody will believe that. After the last few decades of rhetoric that idea is an obvious camel's nose. Four sentences back in the same paragraph you were comparing such laws to seat belt legislation, and we all know how that went - it started out as a simple, cheap, voluntary use, manufacturer's burden that worked pretty well. Explicit denials of any mandatory use, etc. By now the police can and do pull people over on the highway (risking their lives) for not visibly wearing the things (a good pretext for pulling anyone over they want to harass), explosive air bags are aimed at everyone's faces, hands, and eardrums, in case they aren't wearing their seat belt, little kids can't even sit in the front seat, people have to belt in their groceries and winter coats to start their car. and the entire kludge costs hundreds of dollars (and more to repair), while delivering diminishing safety returns with each new level of cost and hassle.

 

If you want to reassure people that your laws are not going to be intrusive, comparing them to car safety and regulation is not a good approach.

Edited October 11, 2015 by overtone

[Ten oz]

1 - Any gun kept even partly for self defense benefits is almost always in use.

 

 

 

 

2 - That sounds good, but by now nobody will believe that. After the last few decades of rhetoric that idea is an obvious camel's nose. Four sentences back in the same paragraph you were comparing such laws to seat belt legislation, and we all know how that went - it started out as a simple, cheap, voluntary use, manufacturer's burden that worked pretty well. Explicit denials of any mandatory use, etc. By now the police can and do pull people over on the highway (risking their lives) for not visibly wearing the things (a good pretext for pulling anyone over they want to harass), explosive air bags are aimed at everyone's faces, hands, and eardrums, in case they aren't wearing their seat belt, little kids can't even sit in the front seat, people have to belt in their groceries and winter coats to start their car. and the entire kludge costs hundreds of dollars (and more to repair), while delivering diminishing safety returns with each new level of cost and hassle.

 

If you want to reassure people that your laws are not going to be intrusive, comparing them to car safety and regulation is not a good approach.

1 - People can do what they want with their firearms. The gun lock/safe law would simply making gun owners more liable if their firearms end up used in a crime. Firearms owners with gun for self defense can keep them under the pillow if they want. The catch is that if that gun winds up at their childs school killing children they would be prosecutable.

 

2 - How many lives do you estimate have been saved as a result of seat belts and air bags? How much do you think auto insurance would cost today without seat belts and air bags? Your comments allude to the consequences while ignoring the incredible success. Nothing is perfect and any law can grow or be abused. In the case of seat belts the problems created by the way the law has been administered over time pales in comparison to the problems it solved. Besides there are already many laws that govern our behavior in our homes that are only in enforced after the fact. Hitting ones children is illegal yet police agencies do not go around door to door performing random spot checks to ensure children are okay. We can play devil's advocate with any law and extrapolate it out to the gestapo marching down our streets taking our rights.

 

I grew up well before bicycle helmets became popular. When bicycle helmet requirements for kids first became popular I thought it was riduculous. Since helmet laws only apply to kids I continued cycling for years without a helmet. Over time I noticed seemingly every adult choosing to wear a helmet despite not being legally required. Eventually in 2008 I started working on a campus that required everyone wear a helmet on property. For months I would literally cycle to work with my helmet in my backpack and only put it on when I got to campus. Eventually I got tired of the extra hassle of taking the helmet off and on and just started wearing the damn thing. Not long after I saw a cyclist without a helmet go down and hurt their head so started wearing my helmet everytime. In june of this year I had a nasty spill cycling at about 20mph and if not for my helmet I would have been seriously injured. Bicycle helmets laws were passed for children yet most adults have adopted the practice. Bicycle helmet laws have not been a first step toward intrusive enforcement robbing people of their liberty.

[John Cuthber]

In reply to my observation " On a related note, perhaps we should require gun owners to have insurance- much the same as with car ownership."

 

Not in the US - at least, not until after some minimum number of weapons.

I don't understand.

Do you mean that in the states there is no requirement for insurance for gun ownership- OK Yes, I guessed that- I suggest changing it.

Or do you mean that there is some requirement for insurance if you have many guns, in which case I'm just suggesting drooping the threshold to 1.

What did you actually mean?

 

(I realise it's going to be difficult to get the population of the US to swallow this idea when they are so addicted to guns that this sort of thing doesn't sway them.)

 

[overtone]

People can do what they want with their firearms. The gun lock/safe law would simply making gun owners more liable if their firearms end up used in a crime

And that would be established how, exactly? Unintrusively, I mean. And without imposing a cost barrier on a Constitutional right.

 

 

2 - How many lives do you estimate have been saved as a result of seat belts and air bags?

By required presence of voluntary seat belts extensively promoted? Very many. The extra by making wearing them mandatory under all conditions, in betrayal of original promises? Some but much fewer, and balanced by the opportunity cost: the belts had to be designed to be less effective and more expensive, working against the mandate. Adding air bags? Few, and careless (they save the unbelted, injure the belted) and balanced by not only the expense and the working against the seat belt option, but by a new category of people injured and even killed by the bags themselves. And none of this latter stuff in the service of protecting others - intrusive in the extreme. A dangerous and unreliable employment of governmental power.

 

Ponder the situation faced by the musicians I know - driving in the winter ice and snow, securely belted as always (so the air bag is redundant), knowing that the most minor of bumper taps at a red light can break their thumbs and eardrums. For their own protection, see, from their own judgment.

 

 

We can play devil's advocate with any law and extrapolate it out to the gestapo marching down our streets taking our rights

It's especially easy to do that when the proponents of the law have advocated for that very agenda - sometimes without even recognizing the implications of what they are saying.

 

Bicycle helmets laws were passed for children yet most adults have adopted the practice. Bicycle helmet laws have not been a first step toward intrusive enforcement robbing people of their liberty.

1) They have 2) So?

A helmet law affecting me would be quite intrusive - a serious expense coupled with a serious diminishment of my enjoyment, and almost no gain in safety - and yes, they are being proposed, frequently, in my area. As far as the benefits? Kids largely quit riding bikes in my neighborhood, for some reason - they stay home now and play computer games and get fat. I don't know how it all balances, but I don't see the nannystaters keeping track of the downside of that or anything else they do.

 

You're not reassuring me, with these comparisons. Here's a tip: don't compare gun laws to motorcycle helmet laws either. Very deep resentment still lives in that issue.

 

What did you actually mean?

I mean you can't do that in the US until after a couple of guns - it would be a very good idea for one of these private arsenals, but the first couple of firearms cannot be assessed significant cost. Edited October 11, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

 

And that would be established how, exactly? Unintrusively, I mean. And without imposing a cost barrier on a Constitutional right.

 

 

By required presence of voluntary seat belts extensively promoted? Very many. The extra by making wearing them mandatory under all conditions, in betrayal of original promises? Some but much fewer, and balanced by the opportunity cost: the belts had to be designed to be less effective and more expensive, working against the mandate. Adding air bags? Few, and careless (they save the unbelted, injure the belted) and balanced by not only the expense and the working against the seat belt option, but by a new category of people injured and even killed by the bags themselves. And none of this latter stuff in the service of protecting others - intrusive in the extreme. A dangerous and unreliable employment of governmental power.

 

Ponder the situation faced by the musicians I know - driving in the winter ice and snow, securely belted as always (so the air bag is redundant), knowing that the most minor of bumper taps at a red light can break their thumbs and eardrums. For their own protection, see, from their own judgment.

 

 

It's especially easy to do that when the proponents of the law have advocated for that very agenda - sometimes without even recognizing the implications of what they are saying.

 

1) They have 2) So?

A helmet law affecting me would be quite intrusive - a serious expense coupled with a serious diminishment of my enjoyment, and almost no gain in safety - and yes, they are being proposed, frequently, in my area. As far as the benefits? Kids largely quit riding bikes in my neighborhood, for some reason - they stay home now and play computer games and get fat. I don't know how it all balances, but I don't see the nannystaters keeping track of the downside of that or anything else they do.

 

You're not reassuring me, with these comparisons. Here's a tip: don't compare gun laws to motorcycle helmet laws either. Very deep resentment still lives in that issue.

 

 

I mean you can't do that in the US until after a couple of guns - it would be a very good idea for one of these private arsenals, but the first couple of firearms cannot be assessed significant cost.

 

My word! What a lot of wrong.

Lets start with the fact that guns are not free. So the cost of a gun is"imposing a cost barrier on a Constitutional right. ".

Now, if, as you presumably believe, your guns are not going to harm anyone, the insurance premium should be near zero- just the admin costs.

If you add it to some other insurance you already have- home,car, life, whatever; the cost should be minimal.

 

We could make a start by just getting health (and life) insurance companies to ask the question "is there a gun in your home" and setting the premium to reflect this.

If the "self defence" argument is valid, then this should reduce your premiums- so there's no reason for you to object to it.

You should insist on it so the extra deaths you presume to accrue from not having a gun to defend yourself are born by the people who don't have a gun.

 

OK, now lets have a brief look at seatbelts (it's a bit OT but...)

from the data here

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbeltbrief/

we see that "More than half of the people killed in car crashes were not restrained at the time of the crash.1 Wearing a seat belt is the most effective way to prevent death and serious injury in a crash."

and that seatbelts have saved something like 250,000 lives

Here in the UK we "did the experiment" and introduced legislation requiring drivers to wear belts- it had been voluntary before.

So this is the difference you talked about when you said "By required presence of voluntary seat belts extensively promoted? Very many. The extra by making wearing them mandatory under all conditions, in betrayal of original promises? Some but much fewer,"

The answer is, perhaps, surprising.

Not much happened.

From

http://jech.bmj.com/content/43/3/218.full.pdf

There's a small drop in the overall number of deaths.

And there's an interesting other change; the number of pedestrian and pedal cycle deaths went up slightly.

The latter is interesting as it might explain why the drop in driver deaths is so small (obviously any overall drop in the death rates is a good thing)

The suggestion is that the drivers "compensated" for having seat belts on by driving faster. That meant they hit more bikes and walkers and their own death rates stayed nearly the same.

 

So, the belts actually produced a negative "opportunity cost"- you could drive faster and not increase your risk of killing yourself.

 

This

" Ponder the situation faced by the musicians I know - driving in the winter ice and snow, securely belted as always (so the air bag is redundant)"

is just plain contrafactual.

the bags are still useful, even when the driver is wearing a belt.- other wise there would be no use fitting them in (for example) the UK where seat belt use is very high (partly because it's a legal requirement).

and as for "A dangerous and unreliable employment of governmental power. "

FFS! just don't vote in a government that does things that are bad for the people, then it doesn't matter what power they have (or don't). It's the policy that matters, not the power.

 

" A helmet law affecting me would be quite intrusive - a serious expense coupled with a serious diminishment of my enjoyment, "

How much is a bike? How much is a helmet? How much is your brain worth?

"and almost no gain in safety "

http://www.cochrane.org/CD001855/INJ_wearing-a-helmet-dramatically-reduces-the-risk-of-head-and-facial-injuries-for-bicyclists-involved-in-a-crash-even-if-it-involves-a-motor-vehicle

 

So, the argument that's left is "serious diminishment of my enjoyment, "

 

Do you remember the video of the Australian bloke talking about guns?

You can find it here

http://rare.us/story/jim-jefferies-gun-control-bit-went-viral-for-its-hilarity-and-now-its-getting-personal/

at about 15 seconds into the vid, he explains the one real reason for not having gun control which is "F*** off! I like guns"

Edited October 11, 2015 by John Cuthber

[overtone]

Lets start with the fact that guns are not free. So the cost of a gun is"imposing a cost barrier on a Constitutional right. ".

Dude, the Constitution restricts the government, not reality.

 

 

We could make a start by just getting health (and life) insurance companies to ask the question "is there a gun in your home" and setting the premium to reflect this

They already can, if they want to - if it affects their bottom line (it does, like any possession). Having the government increase that premium by any significant amount would of course violate the Constitution etc.

 

 

You should insist on it so the extra deaths you presume to accrue from not having a gun to defend yourself are born by the people who don't have a gun.

They already are, if any. Are you reading what you're typing?

 

 

Here in the UK we "did the experiment" and introduced legislation requiring drivers to wear belts- it had been voluntary before.

So this is the difference you talked about when you said "By required presence of voluntary seat belts extensively promoted? Very many. The extra by making wearing them mandatory under all conditions, in betrayal of original promises? Some but much fewer,"

The answer is, perhaps, surprising.

Not much happened.

Same in the US. It's one of the standard examples of "safety creep" in nannystate legislation. What's missing in the retelling is the promises: when seat belts were first required in US cars, a very good thing, regulators promised they would be voluntary use. When they were first made mandatory use, politicians promised the police would not be able to pull anyone over for that alone. These promises were key to persuading voters. Not all these voters amnesiac.

" Ponder the situation faced by the musicians I know - driving in the winter ice and snow, securely belted as always (so the air bag is redundant)"

is just plain contrafactual.

the bags are still useful, even when the driver is wearing a belt

No, net they probably aren't. They probably (stats are really hard to come by here) cause about as much harm as they prevent. And of course short people, people with children, the blind and musicians and others who need their hands and eardrums, poor people scraping the rent off the car costs, etc, have particular concerns with the things. People have different risk and cost profiles at the margin like that - ignored by the nannystate.

 

the bags are still useful, even when the driver is wearing a belt.- other wise there would be no use fitting them in (for example) the UK where seat belt use is very high (partly because it's a legal requirement).

And of course there must be significant benefit from fitting them, because otherwise nobody would - right? Ha.

 

and as for "A dangerous and unreliable employment of governmental power. "

FFS! just don't vote in a government that does things that are bad for the people, -

Yep. That's what the choice comes down to, way too often. That's what's going to keep happening, in the US, until the gun control lunatics get a clue. I've seen gun control kill more political campaigns than abortion, in my region.

 

How much is a bike? How much is a helmet? How much is your brain worth?

A bike is worth nothing if I don't enjoy riding it. A helmet is of negative value - I would pay to not wear one. My brain is safer at home, or in a car (where, I notice, none of these safety first people wear helmets - despite the much lower cost in all respects, and the head injury stats from cars crashes, they just don't care - risk be damned, say those fools).

 

"and almost no gain in safety "

http://www.cochrane....a-motor-vehicle

Almost irrelevant statistic. Why is it that gun control people are so devoted to invalid statistical reasoning?

 

at about 15 seconds into the vid, he explains the one real reason for not having gun control

The one real reason the US doesn't have sensible gun control is the prevalence of that kind of dumbass presumption on the part of gun control advocates - it kills them at the polls.

I don't particularly like guns. They're dangerous and expensive and inconvenient, they're hard on the ears, they attract thieves, I don't hunt, and where I'm living now I have no use for them. But how can I vote into office ignorant presumption and clueless employment of governmental power?

Edited October 11, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

You need to sort out the quoting there.

 

Also, do you know that the air bags in the US are different from those in the UK?

They are less powerful here- because it's safe to assume the person is also being restrained by a belt- so they don't do so much harm.

It's your "freedom" to not wear a belt that results in deaths and damage from air bags.

 

BTW, it's not a "presumption" about the guns- he demonstrates the reasoning behind it.

Oh, and

"A bike is worth nothing if I don't enjoy riding it. "

Unless cheap healthy transport has a value, but...

 

"Almost irrelevant statistic. "

Said the man who introduced a discussion of bike helmets.

​But "almost irrelevant" or not, it shows that "and almost no gain in safety " simply isn't correct.

If you say something and I point out that the evidence shows it's wrong, the evidence is not irrelevant.

[overtone]

It's your "freedom" to not wear a belt that results in deaths and damage from air bags.

We don't have any freedom to not wear a belt. Where I am we can be pulled over on the highway and have dogs run through our cars for twenty minutes when already late to work, then pay 125+ dollars in tickets and fees along with three years of extra insurance, for not wearing a seat belt.

 

We were promised that would never happen.

 

And no, it's the air bags that cause death and damage from air bags. This is important. The government is not the weather, a deity, or your mother.

 

BTW, it's not a "presumption" about the guns- he demonstrates the reasoning behind it.

The presumption is yours. And your idea of demonstrated reasoning in this matter is visible throughout - again, in the US this kills gun control at the polls.

 

 

 

Said the man who introduced a discussion of bike helmets.

No, I didn't.

 

 

 

​But "almost irrelevant" or not, it shows that "and almost no gain in safety " simply isn't correct.

 

It does not. You lack the necessary information to evaluate my claim in light of that study - in particular, where and when and how and why I ride my bike. You also lack the necessary information to draw your conclusion from that study for others in general - namely their actual risk of accident. People vary considerably in their risk of accident.

Edited October 11, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

 

And no, it's the air bags that cause death and damage from air bags. This is important. The government is not the weather, a deity, or your mother.

 

No, I didn't.

 

Yes, the air-bags cause deaths; and they cause a lot more in your country than mine. And there's a reason for that and it's to do with wearing seat belts.

 

Oops! My mistake,

what you introduced was that the idea that they offered.

"and almost no gain in safety "