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

[Carrock]

I'm afraid that might result in more dangerous guns as they would be inherently more difficult to shoot accurately.

 

More dangerous for the user certainly.

 

Even the most law abiding citizen is potentially dangerous and may get you in legal trouble after you fail to kill him/her with an inadequately lethal gun, even if you honestly believed (s)he was intending to attempt to kill you.

 

 

 

I'm sorry but I don't understand. Can you please restate this?

You clearly regard a gun's potential to kill the people it's aimed at as the primary, perhaps only, measure of its safety.

As far as that woman is concerned, if people don't follow basic safety standards then most everything in their lives will be dangerous.

I'd agree to an extent. However, the widespread view that guns improve personal safety, the general absence of a requirement for competence and the idea that safety is measured by the ability to shoot the intended target are mitigating circumstances.

 

There is no requirement, in general, for competence in a gun owner, so in many cases even a 'safe' gun will kill apparently innocent bystanders rather than suspects.

The number of shots that can be fired is important, since the more shots, the better the chance of killing the suspect.

 

A perfect crime if you're careful and a bit lucky:

I've seen a few 'true crime' stories where a spouse kills several partners 'accidentally' before the police get suspicious enough to look for evidence of murder. Even then, abysmal stupidity by the perp or dubious evidence is often required for a conviction.

 

The most powerful, lethal gun (with a light trigger action and easily disabled safety catch) is therefor the 'safest'.

[zapatos]

 

You clearly regard a gun's potential to kill the people it's aimed at as the primary, perhaps only, measure of its safety.

You clearly have a vivid imagination.

[overtone]

 

 

Could some sort of microscopic carbon tag with a serial number be molded into every bullet?

Probably both too expensive and a performance problem for target shooting or hunting. Also unlikely to survive impact.

 

There was an idea floating around to tag the powder loads with registered mixtures of isotopes of stuff, so the powder residue could be traced to the purchaser of the ammo. Not sure what happened to that - some kind of technical problem (it wasn't very expensive).

[Ten oz]

Probably both too expensive and a performance problem for target shooting or hunting. Also unlikely to survive impact.

 

There was an idea floating around to tag the powder loads with registered mixtures of isotopes of stuff, so the powder residue could be traced to the purchaser of the ammo. Not sure what happened to that - some kind of technical problem (it wasn't very expensive).

 

Hasn't there always been ideas related to recording muzzle signatures so that bullets fired can be traced back to specific firearms?

[overtone]

 

 

Hasn't there always been ideas related to recording muzzle signatures so that bullets fired can be traced back to specific firearms?

You have to have the firearm to compare, and reasonably intact bullets recovered. Also, it can be manipulated - the gun physically altered afterwards to give a different signature if compared.

 

The isotope signature is on file at the manufacture, and the powder embeds in everything - hands, clothing, the bullets.

[imatfaal]

I don't want us to lose sight of what this thread is about - it's not really about gun control. It's a wail at a funeral of a child - of too many children; a salutary reminder of what is happening.

 

anon. 3 year old

January 20, 2016 Flint, Michigan Age: 3 Age Group: Child 0-11 Gender: Male Status: Killed

 

anon. 3 year old

January 20, 2016 New Orleans, Louisiana Age: 3 Age Group: Child 0-11 Gender: Male Status: Killed

 

anon. 11 year old

January 19, 2016 Anadarko, Oklahoma Age: 11 Age Group: Child 0-11 Gender: Male Status: Killed

 

Name: Bryson Hernandez

January 19, 2016 Cypress, Texas Age: 4 Age Group: Child 0-11 Gender: Male Status: Killed

 

Name: Wesley Kernel Age: 9 Age Group: Child 0-11 Gender: Male Status: Killed

Name: Timber Kernel Age: 7 Age Group: Child 0-11 Gender: Female Status: Killed

January 16, 2016 Carthage, Missouri

 

Name: Elijah Johnson

January 14, 2016 Dayton, Ohio Age: 1 Age Group: Child 0-11 Gender: Male Status: Killed

 

Name: Romell L. Jones

January 11, 2016 3116 Acorn Street Age: 11 Age Group: Child 0-11 Gender: Male Status: Killed

 

anon. 3 year old J

anuary 10, 2016 Lumberton, North Carolina Age: 3 Age Group: Child 0-11 Gender: Male Status: Killed

 

Name: Andre Lamont O’Neal Jr.

January 09, 2016 Louisville, Kentucky Age: 8 Age Group: Child 0-11 Gender: Male Status: Killed

 

Name: Phillip Nguyen

January 06, 2016 Buford, Georgia Age: 2 Age Group: Child 0-11 Status: Killed

 

Name: LeTara Jones

January 04, 2016 1400 block of Briercrest Lane Age: 13 Age Group: Teen 12-17 Gender: Female Status: Killed

 

anon. 9 year old

January 04, 2016 Trinidad, Colorado Age: 9 Age Group: Child 0-11 Gender: Male Status: Killed

 

Name: Skylar Monroe Hartman

January 01, 2016 Cudahy, Wisconsin Age: 2 Age Group: Child 0-11 Gender: Female Status: Killed

 

 

This is Skylar - who was murdered by her father about an hour into the year. And I know I am laying it on heavily - that's the point. Fourteen children including Six toddlers not yet at school shot and killed by the 22 January...

[StringJunky]

Imatfaal, I have nothing left to vomit. I am sicked out mentally about this. All I can think of now is to utter four-letter words.

[iNow]

I don't want us to lose sight of what this thread is about - it's not really about gun control.

Cassandra on the wall...

[MigL]

School shooting today in Saskatchewan.

Five dead.

 

For a supposedly peaceful country, we do our fair share of killing.

[Troymoore4]

OK

When it comes down to it, America still has a lot of guns because many people think that a dead disadvantaged poor kid every day is an acceptable price to pay for owning guns.

All the rest of the debate is window dressing to that fact.

 

It still seems odd to me.

It seem odd because you're using screwed up lodgic. By this statement, you imply that people buy guns for the purpose of killing underpivaledged kids. Guns are tools to be used for hunting, target shooting, and defense of home, family, self and country. Any responsible gun owner would say the same. Check your use of lodgic here!!

Edited April 3, 2016 by Troymoore4

[John Cuthber]

It seem odd because you're using screwed up lodgic. By this statement, you imply that people buy guns for the purpose of killing underpivaledged kids. Any responsible gun owner would say the same. Check your use of lodgic here!!

"It seem odd because you're using screwed up lodgic."

Learn to spell.

"By this statement, you imply that people buy guns for the purpose of killing underpivaledged kids." (BTW, learn to spell)

No I didn't.

 

"Guns are tools to be used for hunting, target shooting, and defense of home, family, self and country. " (BTW, learn to spell)

Which of those uses kills kids?

Are there other tools available that don't do so?

Are you aware that the number of people "legitimately" killed- i.e. a good man with a gun stops a bad man with a gun- is vastly smaller than the number of illegitimate deaths?

 

"Any responsible gun owner would say the same."

The death toll among kids is largely due to guns owned by what were (up to the point where they shot someone) thought of as "Responsible gun owners".

 

"Check your use of lodgic here!! "

Check your use of logic, of facts, of grammar, and of punctuation.

http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Multiple_exclamation_marks

 

[dimreepr]

It seem odd because you're using screwed up lodgic. By this statement, you imply that people buy guns for the purpose of killing underpivaledged kids. Guns are tools to be used for hunting, target shooting, and defense of home, family, self and country. Any responsible gun owner would say the same. Check your use of lodgic here!!

 

 

All responsible dog owners clean up their deposits, but shit still happens.

[overtone]

Are you aware that the number of people "legitimately" killed- i.e. a good man with a gun stops a bad man with a gun- is vastly smaller than the number of illegitimate deaths?

That is an example of the kind of frustratingly deceptive and revealingly confused statistic that makes people reluctant to hand political power to gun control advocates.

 

Why is it apparently impossible to argue for reasonable gun control reasonably?

 

With reasonable gun control we could prevent a good many shootings of children - especially the accidental ones. This gridlock of irrationality is harmful.

Edited April 3, 2016 by overtone

[zapatos]

Scientists have found that people who constantly get bothered by grammatical errors online have "less agreeable" personalities than those who just let them slide.

 

And those friends who are super-sensitive to typos on your Facebook page? Psychological testing reveals they're generally less open, and are also more likely to be judging you for your mistakes than everyone else. In other words, they're exactly who you thought they were. That sounds pretty obvious, but this is actually the first time researchers have been able to show that a person's personality traits can actually determine how they respond to typos and grammatical errors, and it could teach us a lot about how people communicate (or miscommunicate) online.

http://www.sciencealert.com/people-who-constantly-pick-up-grammar-mistakes-are-kinda-jerks-scientists-find

[John Cuthber]

"Scientists have found that people who constantly get bothered by grammatical errors online have "less agreeable" personalities than those who just let them slide."
To get that back on topic, are they found more agreeable than those prepared to let the deaths of children slide, or less so?
Or did you not check?

[zapatos]

To get that back on topic...

Good. I'm hopeful we won't have to see any more comments regarding spelling, grammar and punctuation.

 

...are they found more agreeable than those prepared to let the deaths of children slide, or less so?

Or did you not check?

Not surprisingly that comparison was not part of the study.

In my experience they are about the same.

[iNow]

There's an interesting discussion to be had here, though (if we can move away from the current sniping, that is)...

 

The core point is that even lots of unnecessary deaths of lots of otherwise entirely innocent children is not enough to move people into a safer / more restrictive mindset on the gun ownership issue (Newtown Square and related school shootings, the accidental deaths referenced in this thread, the 30,000+ adults killed just in the US each year by guns, etc.)...

 

If this premise is true, then will anything ever be enough to help us improve beyond the current status quo?

Will any circumstance ever be enough to trigger a fundamental shift in the current impasse?

[zapatos]

The core point is that even lots of unnecessary deaths of lots of otherwise entirely innocent children is not enough to move people into a safer / more restrictive mindset on the gun ownership issue (Newtown Square and related school shootings, the accidental deaths referenced in this thread, the 30,000+ adults killed just in the US each year by guns, etc.)...

 

If this premise is true, then will anything ever be enough to help us improve beyond the current status quo?

Will any circumstance ever be enough to trigger a fundamental shift in the current impasse?

I imagine a large part of the problem is that people just don't connect the two. "How is MY ability to purchase the gun of my choice, directly related to the death of a child?"

 

It is easy to make the argument that fewer guns in the community will lead to fewer deaths in the community, but it is hard to convince a gun owner that MY gun is part of the problem.

And in fact it is a good question. Why 'punish' me due to the inability of someone else to responsibly manage their guns? Of course we do that all the time (speed limits, etc.) but those are privileges, not Rights.

 

I don't foresee any circumstance that will trigger a shift in this impasse.

The best approach may be the approach used by those fighting abortion rights. Give up the effort to make the big change and just pick away at the edges. It has worked well for them.

[Ten oz]

There's an interesting discussion to be had here, though (if we can move away from the current sniping, that is)...

 

The core point is that even lots of unnecessary deaths of lots of otherwise entirely innocent children is not enough to move people into a safer / more restrictive mindset on the gun ownership issue (Newtown Square and related school shootings, the accidental deaths referenced in this thread, the 30,000+ adults killed just in the US each year by guns, etc.)...

 

If this premise is true, then will anything ever be enough to help us improve beyond the current status quo?

Will any circumstance ever be enough to trigger a fundamental shift in the current impasse?

Unfortunately the answer is no. At least not in our current climate. With the help of a willing media pro hun advocates have done a great job creating various focus points that distant from guns. When a person dies from a gun the death is categorized by something other than gun related.Terroism, Street violence, Mental Health, Suicide and Accident are the categories:

 

Terrorism - We are said to be at war. Gun policy is view as a different issue than the politics of terrorism.

 

Street Violence - That is treated as an issue of drugs, criminal justice, poverty, single mothers, welfare, etc. Numerous topics get tied up with a fat racist bow and guns become an after thought.

 

Mental Health - Bullying, violence in video games, prescription drugs, and what warning signs may or may not have existed.

 

Suicide - person had hang themselves or jump off a bridge. The gun wasn't the issue.

 

Accident - accidents are acidents; no one or thing is at fault.

 

If anything could have done it Newtown should have but clearly didn't. There are simply too many distractors. Gun advocates have flooded the issue with too many red herrings. You say lets talk about gun deaths and they say lets talk about black on black crime. You say lets talk about mass shootings and they say lets talk about mental health. Then if by some chance you are able to focus a gun related conversation on guns they just pull out the 2nd amendment and treat it like a religious artifact that fell from the heavens.

[John Cuthber]

That is an example of the kind of frustratingly deceptive and revealingly confused statistic that makes people reluctant to hand political power to gun control advocates.

 

Why is it apparently impossible to argue for reasonable gun control reasonably?

 

With reasonable gun control we could prevent a good many shootings of children - especially the accidental ones. This gridlock of irrationality is harmful.

OK, so what I said was that justifiable homicides are vastly outnumbered by unjustifiable ones.

And that's simply true; in 2012 there were 259 vs 8342

So that's part of the "gridlock of irrationality."

 

On the other hand, the other side's view is that it's reasonable to say that correcting someone's grammatical/ spelling and logical errors is as bad as killing children.

Well, yes, there is a "gridlock of irrationality" - but it's all on one side.

[zapatos]

On the other hand, the other side's view is that it's reasonable to say that correcting someone's grammatical/ spelling and logical errors is as bad as killing children.

Well, yes, there is a "gridlock of irrationality" - but it's all on one side.

To quote overtone, "Why is it apparently impossible to argue for reasonable gun control reasonably?"

[Ten oz]

To quote overtone, "Why is it apparently impossible to argue for reasonable gun control reasonably?"

I have never even seen a gun control discuss able to keep guns as the centeral focus. Freedom, Gov't authority, War for Independence History, Kings and Queens of England, and etc always seem to be as prominent.

 

I would like to believe that if a conversation could focus on guns in isolation most people would agree that as a tool guns are dangerous and like any dangerous tool should require a modicum on oversight.That may be too hopeful though.

[overtone]

OK, so what I said was that justifiable homicides are vastly outnumbered by unjustifiable ones.

And that's simply true; in 2012 there were 259 vs 8342

So that's part of the "gridlock of irrationality."

The irrationality comes in not by your repeated posting of irrelevant factoids, which is noise but not in direct conflict with reason. It comes in via the apparent unreasonable argument you intend when you post them, and your refusal to amend that argument when reason is brought to bear. Justifiable homicide does not measure the degree, frequency, or significance of the use of firearms for "defense", and this has been pointed out to you several times now.

 

 

On the other hand, the other side's view is that it's reasonable to say that correcting someone's grammatical/ spelling and logical errors is as bad as killing children.

Well, yes, there is a "gridlock of irrationality" - but it's all on one side.

 

And that is of course yet more gratuitous poo-flinging such as a significant vocal wing of the gun control crowd cannot seem to omit from their public utterances, leading directly to rejection by the similarly shallow of any actual argument or sense associated with it, and intransigent refusal to entertain any associated political initiatives by not only the shallow but a good many bystanders. It's dangerous to give power to the irrational and irresponsible and juvenile, no matter the cause.

 

And thus, gridlock.

[iNow]

...and just like that, we're once again avoiding the actual topic and focused instead on comments on style and personal barbs. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

[zapatos]

...and just like that, we're once again avoiding the actual topic and focused instead on comments on style and personal barbs. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

I think to some extent these off topic discussions are necessary. We need a common set of ground rules before much progress can be made. You'll never build a stable house if half the workers are using steel and welders, while the other half are using wood and nails.