DF - maybe you don't, but until we restrict firearms to people you consider to be clever enough not to do that kind of thing, it's going to happen.

And if you really do need a gun loaded and ready to go for home defence, even smart people will leave it somewhere they should not. Heck, even people with high IQs lose their keys or mobile phones occasionally. So even then, it's still going to be the case that responsible gun owners will have accidents, or someone they live with will. It's borderline insulting to suggest that it is only an issue of intelligence.

danivon wrote:DF - maybe you don't, but until we restrict firearms to people you consider to be clever enough not to do that kind of thing, it's going to happen.

And if you really do need a gun loaded and ready to go for home defence, even smart people will leave it somewhere they should not. Heck, even people with high IQs lose their keys or mobile phones occasionally. So even then, it's still going to be the case that responsible gun owners will have accidents, or someone they live with will. It's borderline insulting to suggest that it is only an issue of intelligence.

I disagree. If you have a gun in your home, you have to be smart enough to not to keep it loaded in a place a child can reach it. Period.

Cell phones . . . don't kill people.

If you have a gun in your home, you ought to teach your kids that touching it will be a near-death experience. There are ways of teaching them to respect a weapon enough not to think it's "fun."

Btw, show me a 3 year-old who can fire a semi-auto and I'll show you a physically strong genius.

Do we require all poisons stored outside of the home? Which is more likely--a child ingesting poison or a shooting himself or someone else?

GeoJanes,
People have the choice to abort a child in the womb. That does not require my family to have to participate in the abortive process. The same is true with the right to have weapons. You choose to not have a gun in your home. I am fine with that choice you made! I will gladly hold the right to have a weapon in my home, and be responsible for it's safekeeping. That is MY choice.

In both cases of these rights being implemented, there are risks of children no longer living.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:DF - maybe you don't, but until we restrict firearms to people you consider to be clever enough not to do that kind of thing, it's going to happen.

And if you really do need a gun loaded and ready to go for home defence, even smart people will leave it somewhere they should not. Heck, even people with high IQs lose their keys or mobile phones occasionally. So even then, it's still going to be the case that responsible gun owners will have accidents, or someone they live with will. It's borderline insulting to suggest that it is only an issue of intelligence.

I disagree. If you have a gun in your home, you have to be smart enough to not to keep it loaded in a place a child can reach it. Period.

Cell phones . . . don't kill people.

No, but the examples I gave were of things people think are important, that they feel the need to be able to locate at a moment's notice.

And while I agree that people should be responsible if they own a gun, what are your proposals for making sure they are? Or do you see it as some perverse Darwinian action?

If you have a gun in your home, you ought to teach your kids that touching it will be a near-death experience. There are ways of teaching them to respect a weapon enough not to think it's "fun."

Sure there are. Still it doesn't detract from the 'accident' thing.

Btw, show me a 3 year-old who can fire a semi-auto and I'll show you a physically strong genius.

Does it need to be a semi-auto?

3 year old shoots father

3 year old shoots self

3 year old shoots self

Three different incidents during the past 12 months across the USA (Indiana, Washington, Oklahoma) in which a 3 year old kid was able to fire a weapon with deadly consequences. That was just from a quick google search, and I went past quite a few articles where the child was older but still under 16. I've no idea if any of the three weapons involved were semi-automatic. Frankly I'm not sure it matters. Two of the kids are dead and the other has no father.

It's all very well saying that people should be more responsible when owning guns, but who's going to make them? Or do we just shrug when kids die needlessly now?

Do we require all poisons stored outside of the home? Which is more likely--a child ingesting poison or a shooting himself or someone else?

So we should have similar changes to regulations on guns as we've had on the storage and sale of poisons? Hmmm.

Just the other day here where I live...
http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/ ... pGO4g.cspx

two college kids protected themselves with an AR15, one of those "assault rifles" and it worked incredibly well for them!
but it never happens? Break in don't happen while people are home? Criminals don't have hand guns? Assault rifles are not effective at stopping a crime? Well, this one happened a few miles from my own house and blows away pretty much every gun control advocates arguments right out of the water!.

So people can not be responsible, that means government must step in and protect people from themselves? This is the same liberal argument made over and over and over again. Some people are stupid, so we must protect them and keep the threat from ALL people is your reasoning. Instead of increasing gun responsibility with improved education (like we did with cigarettes) we instead demand an end to gun ownership.

People die from drinking and driving, while most people are responsible, how about we protect everyone from the idiots and require those expensive breathalyzer gizmos be put on every car?

irresponsible drivers speeding accidents, how about we put governors on all engines so cars can't travel too fast?

Shouldn't the government protect us from alcoholics? and we can't wait to find out who will or will not drink responsibly we should protect the populace and make all alcohol illegal, doing so will protect us all.

Arguing hypothetical or appealing to anecdotal information isn't a way to resolve whether or not guns in the home have benefits that out weigh the damage wrought by guns in the home. The only way is to step back and look at the actuarial data.

Director, Harvard Injury Control Research Center

Abstract

This article summarizes the scientific literature on the health risks and benefits of having a gun in the home for the gun owner and his/her family. For most contemporary Americans, scientific studies indicate that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit. The evidence is overwhelming for the fact that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns. There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes. On the benefit side, there are fewer studies, and there is no credible evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in. Thus, groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics urge parents not to have guns in the home

http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/early/20 ... 7610396294

I remember people arguing anecdotal against mandatory seat belt laws There was always some scenario where being "tossed clear of the car" was going to be vital to survival and only possible if one didn't latch the seat belt. And you can always find isolated cases where that's true. But the actuarial data proved that seat belts saved lives. Based on the research by Harvard ...guns in the home cost lives.

same thing, you preach how the statistics show having guns can possibly harm others and the government must then step in and protect us from ourselves. Why protect us from guns but ignore alcohol? why ignore cigarettes? why ignore speeding?

You want the government to protect ourselves from our own selves when it suits your position, why not have government step in and install governors on all cars? It would save lives, yes you could point out the anecdotal story or two where speeding up saved your life but the majority of cases would see a drop in deaths. Why are you not insisting such automobile control? it is the same situation and would almost certainly save more lives, why are you not on board with this issue? In fact, let's insist people wear helmets when driving in a car, certainly this would save countless lives. Why not insist on that as well???

tom

same thing, you preach how the statistics show having guns can possibly harm others and the government must then step in and protect us from ourselves. Why protect us from guns but ignore alcohol? why ignore cigarettes? why ignore speeding?

I don't think anyone has ignored the issues you speak of Tom.
Are there not a substantial amount of regulations and laws limiting the way these products can be made, used, advertised ? A couple of examples:
Most of the US has a legal drinking age of 21 for instance...
Many parts have the graduated driving license, and dangerous speeders are jailed....

You don't attempt to improve one situation by engaging in what aboutery over others. You coolly, calmly, rationally and as dispassionately as possible examine the available evidence and draw some conclusions. Harvard drew the conclusion that there is a net danger when guns are in a house.
Having that objective scientific conclusion now one can decide to actions to limit ownership, or regulate methods of use (storage, fingerprint locks etc). or something else. That may be similar to what society has done over the last 40 years to limit the damage tobacco does, speeding does, and alcohol does.... But until there is agreement that the conclusions drawn at Harvard are correct, it will be harder to enact anything alike the successful measures enacted on the three topics you enumerate.
The Gun Industry, just the same as the Tobacco Industry, depends on ignorance or competing anecdotal information in order to stop a clear look at the damage done by the proliferation of guns...

No, wrong!
every single example you give or can give relates exactly to automobile deaths.
Yes we have many regulations for cars and alcohol but we also have many regulations for guns already as well.

I posed a question that you side stepped (again) every example you have for a gun has an equal for the car.
Every single one! Now you again ignore one thing while stating another. if you care about life and want to protect innocent people from those who act recklessly then you certainly must accept the same for cars, every reason you want to "protect us" from guns carries over to cars. Listing examples of how we have regulations on cars while ignoring regulations on guns?? that's your example????

Please answer the question, show us how the two positions are different, I don't see any., you simply dodge the question. Yes, the suggestion of doing these things to a car might seem crazy, but the reasons are all the same. Oh, one difference, the car example would cost YOU money while guns do not, this simply means you do not value human life (unless it happens to do with the costs associated with global warming?)

Just thinking about your reply...

Are there not a substantial amount of regulations and laws limiting the way these products can be made, used, advertised ? A couple of examples:
Most of the US has a legal drinking age of 21 for instance...
Many parts have the graduated driving license, and dangerous speeders are jailed....

using your own logic then, a ban is not required, the real answer is to change laws while not restricting availability and increase education/awareness (as we have stated all along) but not a ban on the product, glad to see you on our side of this after all ...guns for all!

tom

every single example you give or can give relates exactly to automobile deaths.

? I gave two examples. One was the drinking age in the US. (Which is higher than practically anywhere.) I assume age requirement for drinking is there for a number of reasons.

Yes we have many regulations for cars and alcohol but we also have many regulations for guns already as well.

So the question is how well are the laws and regulations enforced and how are they working?
If they aren't working or enforcement is difficult....then improvements need to be made.
There are strict laws against drinking and driving. Included in this are things like making bar tenders responsible for their customers.... traffic stops and random breathalyzers ...etc.
Those laws have reduced the average number of people who are killed in driving accidents in which drinking was involved by a third since 1992. Unfortunately 10,000 people a year still die in these kinds of accidents. But that's 5,000 fewer than 92, and the rate per population is significantly down.
That argues that laws, regulation, and enforcement can improve things.

tom

using your own logic then, a ban is not required

well, I haven't argued for a ban of rifles and shotguns. They are often necessary tools in rural areas. And can be responsibly owned by hunters....
On the other hand hunters don't require semi-automatic weapons to hunt. (I'm actually in favour of arming bears with rifles , in order to make hunting a true competition. But the bears lack opposable thumbs and their eyesight is notoriously poor. ) And handguns are single purpose tools, that single purpose being to kill humans. Banning them effectively would result in a significant decrease in deaths and injuries, just as drunk driving laws did...
There will always be instances or examples that offer opponents of gun control anecdotal rationale for continued ownership of hand guns. But if one looks at the statistics the way an insurance company would.... the risk of accident or death to a family member would always massively outweigh the potential for the handgun contributing to a successful personal defence against an unknown marauder...

GMTom wrote:same thing, you preach how the statistics show having guns can possibly harm others and the government must then step in and protect us from ourselves. Why protect us from guns but ignore alcohol? why ignore cigarettes? why ignore speeding?

We should not ignore them. Hence cigarettes are highly regulated. Hence alcohol is highly regulated. Hence car ownership and use is highly regulated.

And over time the regulations have increased. And guess what? We have seen smoking down, and car deaths down. Good news, huh?

Hence guns are highly regulated, background checks are required, we limit what you can or can not own, we limit where they can be used or where they can be carried, we require special permits to conceal them. You want to compare regulations? Gun regulations are far more strict than are smoking or alcohol regulations. You seem to say those regulations worked where banning of the product was not required, I assume you also must then assume similar measures are in order for guns and assault weapons. So once again, I thank you for being on our side!

and get this

I haven't argued for a ban of rifles and shotguns. They are often necessary tools in rural areas. And can be responsibly owned by hunters

so rifles and shotguns that don't "look scarey" (you are calling for a ban on assault weapons) and only hunters can be responsible? One of my best friends owns several guns, he doesn't hunt, never has, egads, he is not responsible? And here's something, if you believe this, and you seem to appreciate the restrictions and educational programs put on smoking, then how about a real solution and ban guns being used on TV and movies? (we have no smoking seen on TV) how about we educate anyone who wants to purchase a gun , you know, make them less stupid as you seem to think they all are (except for hunters?)

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:DF - maybe you don't, but until we restrict firearms to people you consider to be clever enough not to do that kind of thing, it's going to happen.

And if you really do need a gun loaded and ready to go for home defence, even smart people will leave it somewhere they should not. Heck, even people with high IQs lose their keys or mobile phones occasionally. So even then, it's still going to be the case that responsible gun owners will have accidents, or someone they live with will. It's borderline insulting to suggest that it is only an issue of intelligence.

I disagree. If you have a gun in your home, you have to be smart enough to not to keep it loaded in a place a child can reach it. Period.

Cell phones . . . don't kill people.

No, but the examples I gave were of things people think are important, that they feel the need to be able to locate at a moment's notice.

And while I agree that people should be responsible if they own a gun, what are your proposals for making sure they are? Or do you see it as some perverse Darwinian action?

I mentioned poisons. How about fire accelerates? Should they all be banned from private use? After all, a child could get hold of them and burn a house down.

Alcohol? Prescription drugs?

Want to bet which a child is more likely to get into and more likely to hurt someone with?

If you have a gun in your home, you ought to teach your kids that touching it will be a near-death experience. There are ways of teaching them to respect a weapon enough not to think it's "fun."

Sure there are. Still it doesn't detract from the 'accident' thing.

It is not the Federal government's responsibility to run every home in the nation.

Btw, show me a 3 year-old who can fire a semi-auto and I'll show you a physically strong genius.

Does it need to be a semi-auto?

3 year old shoots father

From the link:

ndiana State Police Sergeant Jerry Goodin called it a 'tragic accident' that could have been prevented.

'We have no reason to believe that there's any foul play involved. We think that this is purely a tragic accident that happened. It was an accident that could have been prevented if the handgun had been out of reach of a 3-year-old child. Unfortunately, it didn't happen that way,' said Goodin.

That proves my point nicely.

3 year old shoots self

Again, I'm sorry, this is really tragic, but . . . you can't legislate sufficiently to stop every stupid action. It's not possible.

From the link:

The car was parked at a gas station just after midnight Wednesday when the boy's mom got out to buy some items and her boyfriend went to fuel the car, leaving his gun inside, NBC affiliate KING5 TV reported.

Police believe the boy then got out of a car seat, grabbed the gun and shot himself. The man's daughter was also in the car, though she was not hurt.

The family, who have not been identified by police, is believed to be from the Tacoma area and the boyfriend does have a concealed weapons permit, KING5 reported.

So, he has a permit . . . and leaves the gun and the child unattended in the car.

Again, tragic, sad, and dumb.

3 year old shoots self

Three different incidents during the past 12 months across the USA (Indiana, Washington, Oklahoma) in which a 3 year old kid was able to fire a weapon with deadly consequences. That was just from a quick google search, and I went past quite a few articles where the child was older but still under 16. I've no idea if any of the three weapons involved were semi-automatic. Frankly I'm not sure it matters. Two of the kids are dead and the other has no father.

The last one was in a police officer's home. No mention is made of where the parent's were.

We're not going to ban guns.

We're not going to be able to outlaw people doing dumb things. There is no law to stop it.

You'd be surprised at how many people risk their lives to do foolish things. I once stopped a stake-bed truck that was stacked high with cardboard and wooden pallets. It was so heavy, the truck was riding too low. When I stopped the vehicle, a man jumped off the top of the cardboard--he had been holding it down with his body as they drove along this 50 mph road.

The number of stupid things I've seen people do is long. You can't stop stupid. You just can't.

It's all very well saying that people should be more responsible when owning guns, but who's going to make them? Or do we just shrug when kids die needlessly now?

I'm not shrugging. It's very sad. But, on your logic, we should get rid of farm equipment, sports, cars, bicycles, and all manner of things--because kids get hurt and/or killed.

Do we require all poisons stored outside of the home? Which is more likely--a child ingesting poison or a shooting himself or someone else?

So we should have similar changes to regulations on guns as we've had on the storage and sale of poisons? Hmmm.

If those things are part of the Bill of Rights, you've got an excellent case. Are they?

You want to ban guns . . . amend the Constitution.