The sad casualty of guns and stupid people in America

originally posted by: UnknownEntity4U
a reply to: Mianeye
maybe you should look up how many kids die in car crashes because of stupid parents. no you wouldn't do that now. lets find something or someone to blame. more kids die drawnding then from guns, so are you going to ban and take away or remove all water now?

That's impractical. Are you saying nothing should be banned?

Do you understand that using a car can have an alternative outcome, such as completing a journey.
And that a car completes its journey far more often than it's use is involved in an innocent life being taken.

Whereas a gun's use (to protect a family?) does not occur more than the amount of innocent lives it takes when used.

So, do you see there is a risk involved?

Sensible people would weigh up the risk of most things before using them.

Perhaps you should think before responding with the same NRA driven narrative, have a go and think about what you are saying first.

Before guns, it was slingshots, before slingshots it was a blade, before the blade it was a rock. We will always have a way to cause harm to our fellow human beings who don't suffer from our version of reality.

originally posted by: AshFan
Before guns, it was slingshots, before slingshots it was a blade, before the blade it was a rock. We will always have a way to cause harm to our fellow human beings who don't suffer from our version of reality.

How many toddlers were killed by slingshots do you think?

Were slingshots mass-marketed and sold to families for profit under the illusion that they would protect their family?

Blades have alternative uses, rocks are everywhere. We can only control certain things, guns are a unnecessary risk to a families well-being. Owning one, puts your family in more danger. It's that simple.

a reply to: SudoNim

A gun's use is not only to protect.

Mine puts food on the table.

Bows, knives and spears are useful too for that, but no where near as good as a fire arm, and in fact can instead only wound an animal that runs off to die a very slow and agonizing death later if not found quickly.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: SudoNim

A gun's use is not only to protect.

Mine puts food on the table.

Bows, knives and spears are useful too for that, but no where near as good as a fire arm, and in fact can instead only wound an animal that runs off to die a very slow and agonizing death later if not found quickly.

Good point, although I think there should still be restrictions in place or at least checks or training to ensure those using them are doing so in a safe manner. Even if that means insulting some peoples pride by making them prove something that they are well capable of doing.

My knowledge on hunting isn't well versed so if a fire-arm is the safest and most practical tool than I can see your argument.

I'm however referring to the guns bought as protection and not for this purpose and the disillusioned owners who have been brainwashed into thinking they are protecting their family.

a reply to: SudoNim

It's different in each state, but here where I live, you are required to go through a safety course....in order to get the hunting license. If you can not show that certification, you don't get the license to hunt.

Gun safety itself should be a no brainer:

1) Unless you are using the gun, you keep it locked up, trigger/magazine lock is even better.

2) Always keep the ammunition for your weapons locked up.

3) Never lock up the guns and ammo in the same place.

4) Never point a gun at anything unless you are going to kill said thing.

5) Always treat a gun as though it is loaded.

6) If a person insists on keeping a loaded gun out and available for use due to "home defense" then do the following, as it will save lives:

a) Use a pump action shotgun.
b) Use custom made rounds and load them in this order:

1) Baby Powder load - No one get's seriously hurt, only soiled underwear. Keeps accidents from happening.
2) Rock Salt - Hurts like a SOB, but only fatal if point blank.
3) Buck Shot - If who ever has entered your house has not ID themselves after 1, and still is not trying to give up or run away after 2, then they are there to either seriously harm or kill you.

a reply to: SudoNim

I can't find any pre 1700's stats on this.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: SudoNim

It's different in each state, but here where I live, you are required to go through a safety course....in order to get the hunting license. If you can not show that certification, you don't get the license to hunt.

Gun safety itself should be a no brainer:

1) Unless you are using the gun, you keep it locked up, trigger/magazine lock is even better.

2) Always keep the ammunition for your weapons locked up.

3) Never lock up the guns and ammo in the same place.

4) Never point a gun at anything unless you are going to kill said thing.

5) Always treat a gun as though it is loaded.

6) If a person insists on keeping a loaded gun out and available for use due to "home defense" then do the following, as it will save lives:

a) Use a pump action shotgun.
b) Use custom made rounds and load them in this order:

1) Baby Powder load - No one get's seriously hurt, only soiled underwear. Keeps accidents from happening.
2) Rock Salt - Hurts like a SOB, but only fatal if point blank.
3) Buck Shot - If who ever has entered your house has not ID themselves after 1, and still is not trying to give up or run away after 2, then they are there to either seriously harm or kill you.

Very sound advice.

Although I'd say even the mere presence of a gun in a home is likely to escalate matters during any sort of intrusion. If someone enters your house with a gun(which is what Americans seem petrified of), the chances of someone in your family being shot skyrockets if there is already a gun present in the house.

The safety course and licence to hunt seem very sensible and fair.

a reply to: SudoNim

The REAL danger to Americans children are all of the atoms just laying everywhere, Don't you know that just one atom can start a chain reaction that can kill tens of thousands? And you don't even need a background check to get your hands on these things! Do you think the government does anything about it? Noooo... Because the Atom lobby has Washington in a death grip of money, lies, and hookers!

Won't someone think of the children?

STOP ATOMS NOW

originally posted by: AshFan
a reply to: SudoNim

The REAL danger to Americans children are all of the atoms just laying everywhere, Don't you know that just one atom can start a chain reaction that can kill tens of thousands? And you don't even need a background check to get your hands on these things! Do you think the government does anything about it? Noooo... Because the Atom lobby has Washington in a death grip of money, lies, and hookers!

Won't someone think of the children?

STOP ATOMS NOW

Do you think I could make a living out of selling ATOMS to gullible parents under the charade that they actually save lives?

originally posted by: Denoli

...and don't give it the GUNS AINT THE PROBLEM BS .

THEY ARE THE PROBLEM !

...

Live in the paranoid denial lives , those who don't think guns are a problem .

Huh. My kids have both managed to survive the last decade without getting shot by any of the guns in this house.

I guess my guns must be faulty?

Huh. My kids have both managed to survive the last decade without getting shot by any of the guns in this house.

I guess my guns must be faulty?

It's not your guns that are at fault for your kids not being killed by them, its all your right wing use of safety and education that is throwing off the curve.

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: seagull


I'm not the one ignoring, you are, would you like to reduce the children casualty or not.

The 2'nd amendment is out of date in today's America, and is causing more trouble than fixing, wouldn't you agree ?

No, the Second Amendment is more important than ever. Have you seen our authoritarian Government? Guns in the hands of The People is the one thing that gives them pause....that's why they are trying to take them.

If you want to advance a numbers based argument, you need to be honest about EVERYTHING the data implies. So far the numbers tossed here are tragic realities but are either outright or borderline insignificant when compared to the numbers of gun owners and guns. For some reason our Euro-pals and wing-nuts don't seem to get this.

On the subject of X vs Y = more deaths :

There's no point in getting sucked up in philosophical arguments over malpractice deaths vs. Gun violence deaths because the outcome is fundamentally the same. The fact of the matter is more children in the USA are murdered or accidentally killed each year in greater numbers by other means.

So lets look at the numbers.


2700 children dead in 2016
350 million guns in the usa.
23 million new gun owners in 2015
35% of american households with guns
43,750,000 households with guns.
.
Scary numbers, yes? Not even china has that many armed people...but our anti-gun friends sources paint a different picture once you crunch numbers.

-Of the 350 million guns, only .0007 percent of guns are responsible for the death of children in The Current Year.

-Of 23 million new gun owners, only 0.012% would be responsible.

-Of the 43 million households rounded UP to 44 million, only 0.006% would be responsible for the death of children in 2016.

So lets compare it to the 91 people who are killed daily via gun violence. That means we have 33,000 dead per year which means....

- 0.075% of gun owning households would be responsible for their deaths.


0.14% of new gun owners in 2015 would be responsible.

0.009% of the nations guns are responsible for deaths.


... gun violence as you portray it is borderline insignificant from a statistical stance.

No it doesn't change the tragic reality they represent, but it does prove that a literal 99.9% of legal guns and gun owners are NOT used for murder of adults or children. The sad thing is, in a nation of 250000000+ those fractions of a fraction represent broken families and dead countrymen. Plus, to be fair, this only takes into account the deaths of children in 2016 and only murders; it doesn't take into account the number of violent crimes that are committed with a gun do not result in Murder ( which is a testament to how non violent americans are becoming) but permanent injury and general injuries.


If you would know of a solution that ensures that not only do those thousands of deaths get reduced, but the 99.9% of gun owners who are NOT committing crimes don't get punished because of other people's actions, then i am all for it.

If your goal was to convince me that in the USA gun violence isn't a matter of gun availability, but rather the wide gamut of factors that contribute to criminal violence, (as we are taught in even HS level law classes) then you've done a great job.

I apologize if I come off as snarky or condescending, mut i am afraid that a lot of the people here who are advancing this argument haven't really taken the time to honestly evaluate its weaknesses. The tendency to latch onto the emotionally compelling aspect of it as well as the one veritable truth that they do have --which is, "any death of a child is one too many"-- isn't enoug to convince me to further remove peoples naturalistic right to self defense.

What you are suggesting is tantamount to ripping off a tiger's claws in order to protect the Woodland mammals that it feeds upon and then saying " WELL CAT FOOD EXISTS FOR A REASON, CALL WHOLE FOODS AND HAVE THEM DELIVER IT." when only less than 1 percent of tigers use their claws to commit their kills.


I'm sorry but axiomatic and sloganistic thinking isn't going to fix something that defies axioms and slogans. This "what about the kids?" Logic is weak mathematically, and completely ignores the multi-faceted genesis of violent crime.

And for the record I could technically be considered a victim of gun-violence. I have had guns pulled on me, and so has my wife. I have even lost family members to gun violence.

I do not blame the gun, but I blame the people pulling the trigger... because if they didn't use a gun then they would have used a knife, sword, pillow or anything else that could guarantee that they would have seen their goal of killing.

Have you ever seen what happens to a person when a syringe of animal blood is injected into them? I can assure you a gun is far more Humane and far easier to treat than a triangular Bayonet wound or the total rejection of every blood cell.

Sources:

www.percentagecalculator.net... for calculations an formulas.

(See OP for the "2700 dead" number)

mobile.nytimes.com...

everytownresearch.org...

www.statista.com...

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: stormcell

Its just odd that the OP wants to isolate gun violence, and ignore the big picture: violence. what does it matter if you are killed by gun or knife....you are still killed. And from the perspective of humanity, perhaps its better to die quickly than to suffer through being hacked to pieces with an axe.

The desire to isolate "gun violence" as if it were something special and different than any other violence speaks to having nothing but pure agenda.

The concept of self-reliance is the greatest sin in the eyes of Communism & Socialism. Owning a firearm is an expression of self-reliance.

It's hardly surprising that one side of the political debate hates firearm ownership so much.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: Denoli

...and don't give it the GUNS AINT THE PROBLEM BS .

THEY ARE THE PROBLEM !

...

Live in the paranoid denial lives , those who don't think guns are a problem .

Huh. My kids have both managed to survive the last decade without getting shot by any of the guns in this house.

I guess my guns must be faulty?

They also haven't been eaten by a Tiger... they must repel Tigers.... all children repel Tigers.

Your logic is amazing!

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: Denoli

...and don't give it the GUNS AINT THE PROBLEM BS .

THEY ARE THE PROBLEM !

...

Live in the paranoid denial lives , those who don't think guns are a problem .

Huh. My kids have both managed to survive the last decade without getting shot by any of the guns in this house.

I guess my guns must be faulty?

They also haven't been eaten by a Tiger... they must repel Tigers.... all children repel Tigers.

Your logic is amazing!

Your hilarious put down would be more convincing if I kept live Tigers in the house.

However, we can look at several other objects in the house.

We have bleach in the house. The children have never drunk bleach.
We have matches in the house. The children have never set fire to the house.
We have kitchen knives in the house. The children have never cut themselves or stabbed someone else.

Amazingly enough, acting like a responsible adult has dramatically reduced the risk from all these household terrors. It's almost as if it's the people who are responsible for their actions, not the objects.

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: Denoli

...and don't give it the GUNS AINT THE PROBLEM BS .

THEY ARE THE PROBLEM !

...

Live in the paranoid denial lives , those who don't think guns are a problem .

Huh. My kids have both managed to survive the last decade without getting shot by any of the guns in this house.

I guess my guns must be faulty?

They also haven't been eaten by a Tiger... they must repel Tigers.... all children repel Tigers.

Your logic is amazing!

So....instead of logic (people choose to be responsible) you go with magic (children repel tigers)?

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: Denoli

...and don't give it the GUNS AINT THE PROBLEM BS .

THEY ARE THE PROBLEM !

...

Live in the paranoid denial lives , those who don't think guns are a problem .

Huh. My kids have both managed to survive the last decade without getting shot by any of the guns in this house.

I guess my guns must be faulty?

They also haven't been eaten by a Tiger... they must repel Tigers.... all children repel Tigers.

Your logic is amazing!

Your hilarious put down would be more convincing if I kept live Tigers in the house.

However, we can look at several other objects in the house.

We have bleach in the house. The children have never drunk bleach.
We have matches in the house. The children have never set fire to the house.
We have kitchen knives in the house. The children have never cut themselves or stabbed someone else.

Amazingly enough, acting like a responsible adult has dramatically reduced the risk from all these household terrors. It's almost as if it's the people who are responsible for their actions, not the objects.

Is it enough to be "responsible"? All the parents of chilrdren accidently killed by their parents guns considered themselves responsible. Why take the risk?

This "it'll never be us" attitude is the problem.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: Denoli

...and don't give it the GUNS AINT THE PROBLEM BS .

THEY ARE THE PROBLEM !

...

Live in the paranoid denial lives , those who don't think guns are a problem .

Huh. My kids have both managed to survive the last decade without getting shot by any of the guns in this house.

I guess my guns must be faulty?

They also haven't been eaten by a Tiger... they must repel Tigers.... all children repel Tigers.

Your logic is amazing!

So....instead of logic (people choose to be responsible) you go with magic (children repel tigers)?

:meh

Unfortunately my post went over your head.

Saying that because something hasn't happened yet there can't be a problem isn't logic.

I could let my daughter juggle knives every morning, if she doesn't stab herself after the first week am I still being responsible?