Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2014/02/02 17:37:00
Subject: 30 Americans killed daily by gun violence in 2013
Lordhat wrote: I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.
That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.
This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.
And that is a purely facetious idea. If someone is dead set on suicide, they will do it no matter what implement they have handy to do it with. The US and UK have near identical suicide rates, 12 and 11.8 per 100k. In the US 50% are done with firearms, in the UK 50% are done by hanging.
So you have one modern western nation with readily available guns, one modern western nation without. Same suicide rates. The point is debunked.
Nice logic, because we know that the United Kingdom and America are so interchangeable. There can be other factors at work beyond, Scotland has a higher suicide rate that the rest of the UK for example.
I'm not saying that guns are the reason that a lot of people kill themselves I'm saying that them being readily available gives people an "easier" option. It might be a small percent out of the total that do kill themselves with guns, but it's probably still there.
So... put some numbers up then. Provide some proof that your idea of trampling all over the rights of a nation would actually accomplish anything.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2014/02/02 17:37:17
Subject: 30 Americans killed daily by gun violence in 2013
#1. The NRA immediately called for armed guards in the school. Their specific wording in their press release was "qualified, armed security". They acknowledge that police officers in every school would be ideal, but they also acknowledge it would be impossible. Instead of casting aspersions, maybe you can show how it would be possible.
http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf
And who judges what the "qualified armed security" is?
And what am I casting aspersions on? Show how what is possible?
If you're referring to more police in schools, well it would probably help if cities/municipalities actually gave people incentives to become police officers. It would also be helpful if they would tighten recruitment qualifications and start getting the kinds of people who look at a badge as a free pass to do whatever they want out of departments.
#2. And yet despite that framework, those under 21 still manage to get their hands on alcohol and tragedy frequently follows. You do realize there is also a framework for acquiring firearms as well right? Any establishment who sells firearms to a minor faces fines, loss of license, and quite possibly prosecution.
I'm aware. However I'm also aware that we keep having these shootings where a minor has gotten their hands on a firearm.
Conflating the situation of the deaths attributed to alcohol(which yes, are higher than those with firearms), usually accompanied by some kind of automotive accident, to those of firearms deaths is asinine. It's deflection and the sooner you stop doing it the sooner we can get to a productive conversation about firearms.
For the record, I'm not against firearms ownership like some people seem to think. I just think there needs to be more regulation and that gun owners need to step the hell up and recognize that this nonsense about "guns are just tools" needs to stop.
Also: the ATF is a toothless organization that is effectively useless when it comes to enforcement or regulation.
Okay, and?
"Rifle deaths" accounting for less than 400 deaths in 2011 is nice and all, but how many murders or suicides are done with rifles anyways? Does the "rifle deaths" category include shotguns as well?
"Hammer and club deaths" still doesn't tell us how many baseball bats were used though. Clubs can be anything from baseball bats to tire irons to wrenches.
#4. And here you go on that tangent again... We got it. N. Carolina bad.
That's not a tangent, Djones. You and Dreadclaw brought up voter ID laws and act as though they are JUST requiring IDs.
That's not the case.
I use North Carolina as an example because of the fact that I've spent a lengthy amount of time actually reading and paying attention to what's going on in my state.
2014/02/02 17:40:26
Subject: 30 Americans killed daily by gun violence in 2013
djones520 wrote: #4. And here you go on that tangent again... We got it. N. Carolina bad.
That's not a tangent, Djones. You and Dreadclaw brought up voter ID laws and act as though they are JUST requiring IDs.
That's not the case.
I use North Carolina as an example because of the fact that I've spent a lengthy amount of time actually reading and paying attention to what's going on in my state.
Yes, it is a tangent because you are trying to force a discussion on topic du jour. Allow me to restate in case you missed it;
Dreadclaw69 wrote: And because we aren't talking about your particular hobby horse, right? We are talking about constitutional rights, and the fact that certain people are happy to see others infringed and others not.
If you want to have another discussion about NC's voting legislation perhaps you can take it to your last ( as yet unresponded to) thread
2014/02/02 17:47:01
Subject: 30 Americans killed daily by gun violence in 2013
djones520 wrote: #4. And here you go on that tangent again... We got it. N. Carolina bad.
That's not a tangent, Djones. You and Dreadclaw brought up voter ID laws and act as though they are JUST requiring IDs.
That's not the case.
I use North Carolina as an example because of the fact that I've spent a lengthy amount of time actually reading and paying attention to what's going on in my state.
Yes, it is a tangent because you are trying to force a discussion on topic du jour. Allow me to restate in case you missed it;
Dreadclaw69 wrote: And because we aren't talking about your particular hobby horse, right? We are talking about constitutional rights, and the fact that certain people are happy to see others infringed and others not.
If you want to have another discussion about NC's voting legislation perhaps you can take it to your last ( as yet unresponded to) thread
I love how you act as though this is a tangent when you and Whembly continually kept bringing up voter ID laws in other states when discussing NC's voting laws.
Hypocritical much?
2014/02/02 17:50:17
Subject: Re:30 Americans killed daily by gun violence in 2013
Your state government should know how to regulate armed security guards. What training they require. We're talking fee's for licenses and training. State fee's. The "grey" area would be Federal/Military/LEO training. Will those training qualified or not. Your best bet for someone in your state government with LEO/Military background to "ride herd" on it. Put someone with no exposure would pretty much soup sandwich it. I do know of one security contract agency that only hires former military and LEO for experience in all positions. This is not Black Water or whatever their called now, Four Horsemen, Triple Canopy, and whatever else the federal government hire. The organization is replacing security in say...hospitals...airports (local/minor), high value storage centers, banks, and whatever else public security are around.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Your meaning anyone states. Just clarifying
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/02 17:51:40
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2014/02/02 17:55:41
Subject: 30 Americans killed daily by gun violence in 2013
Better ban sex, as 100% of deaths start with life...
as if killing x # of people is reason to ban something,
then when people touting this position are confronted with the FACT that far more mundane objects kill far more people, suddenly the # of people killed is a "meaningless" statistic,
also, people touting that "gun bans worked in britain or other places" are full of it, thats a straight up lie that doesnt hold to the facts regarding crime. britain already had far far less gun crime then the states before they banned handguns, and handgun crime has gon UP since the ban, not down.
"Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871."
"use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned. The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000. "
Lordhat wrote: I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.
That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.
This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.
And that is a purely facetious idea. If someone is dead set on suicide, they will do it no matter what implement they have handy to do it with. The US and UK have near identical suicide rates, 12 and 11.8 per 100k. In the US 50% are done with firearms, in the UK 50% are done by hanging.
So you have one modern western nation with readily available guns, one modern western nation without. Same suicide rates. The point is debunked.
Nice logic, because we know that the United Kingdom and America are so interchangeable. There can be other factors at work beyond, Scotland has a higher suicide rate that the rest of the UK for example.
I'm not saying that guns are the reason that a lot of people kill themselves I'm saying that them being readily available gives people an "easier" option. It might be a small percent out of the total that do kill themselves with guns, but it's probably still there.
So... put some numbers up then. Provide some proof that your idea of trampling all over the rights of a nation would actually accomplish anything.
Kanluwen wrote: I love how you act as though this is a tangent when you and Whembly continually kept bringing up voter ID laws in other states when discussing NC's voting laws.
Hypocritical much?
Tu Quoque now?
This is the last time I will be discussing voter ID with you in this thread. When we talk about voter ID law it is often in general terms, or comparing the approaches in a number of States you always interject NC, and then get snippy when we don't drop everything to accommodate you. You did it in the Texas thread. We started discussing their ID law, you injected NC into the debate and when we continued our discussion you insisted that we only discuss NC. We get it. You don't like NC's voting law, and no matter what discussion takes place you likely never will.
This is a tangent. We are discussing attempts to curtail firearm possession. I made a comparison between constitutional rights. That was not an open invitation for you to shoehorn NC's voting laws into this discussion. As mentioned before, you have a thread for that. It is just that no one took the bait, or cared enough to comment. If you want to discuss NC's voting law please do so there.
2014/02/02 18:07:30
Subject: 30 Americans killed daily by gun violence in 2013
I interject NC because it COMPLETELY demolishes the idea that voter ID laws are being done as a fair and balanced attempt to deal with a problem.
You're aware of that though, which is why it is so humorous that you keep getting high and mighty about how it's "off-topic" and trying to behave as though you do not do this nonsense.
2014/02/02 18:10:28
Subject: 30 Americans killed daily by gun violence in 2013
Lordhat wrote: I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.
That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.
This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.
And that is a purely facetious idea. If someone is dead set on suicide, they will do it no matter what implement they have handy to do it with. The US and UK have near identical suicide rates, 12 and 11.8 per 100k. In the US 50% are done with firearms, in the UK 50% are done by hanging.
So you have one modern western nation with readily available guns, one modern western nation without. Same suicide rates. The point is debunked.
Nice logic, because we know that the United Kingdom and America are so interchangeable. There can be other factors at work beyond, Scotland has a higher suicide rate that the rest of the UK for example.
I'm not saying that guns are the reason that a lot of people kill themselves I'm saying that them being readily available gives people an "easier" option. It might be a small percent out of the total that do kill themselves with guns, but it's probably still there.
So... put some numbers up then. Provide some proof that your idea of trampling all over the rights of a nation would actually accomplish anything.
Rest of the western world.
so again, ignoring the fact that gun crime went up in places like britain after the handgun ban?
when asked for proof, you just make a comment like the rest of the world actually has less gun crime because of their gun control, when the exact opposite is true factually.
"Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871."
"use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned. The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000. "
Lordhat wrote: I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.
That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.
This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.
And that is a purely facetious idea. If someone is dead set on suicide, they will do it no matter what implement they have handy to do it with. The US and UK have near identical suicide rates, 12 and 11.8 per 100k. In the US 50% are done with firearms, in the UK 50% are done by hanging.
So you have one modern western nation with readily available guns, one modern western nation without. Same suicide rates. The point is debunked.
Nice logic, because we know that the United Kingdom and America are so interchangeable. There can be other factors at work beyond, Scotland has a higher suicide rate that the rest of the UK for example.
I'm not saying that guns are the reason that a lot of people kill themselves I'm saying that them being readily available gives people an "easier" option. It might be a small percent out of the total that do kill themselves with guns, but it's probably still there.
So... put some numbers up then. Provide some proof that your idea of trampling all over the rights of a nation would actually accomplish anything.
Rest of the western world.
You mean like how France has higher suicide rates? South Korea, Japan, Finland, Belgium, Poland, Russia. All countries with gun numbers not even close to the US, and higher suicide rates. Canada, UK, Norway, Ireland, all nations that have near identical suicide rates.
So... we have all of these modern nations with equivalent or higher suicide rates, and drastically lower gun numbers. So where is the proof that taking guns away will lower suicide rates?
Full Frontal Nerdity
2014/02/02 18:15:09
Subject: 30 Americans killed daily by gun violence in 2013
Lordhat wrote: I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.
That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.
This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.
And that is a purely facetious idea. If someone is dead set on suicide, they will do it no matter what implement they have handy to do it with. The US and UK have near identical suicide rates, 12 and 11.8 per 100k. In the US 50% are done with firearms, in the UK 50% are done by hanging.
So you have one modern western nation with readily available guns, one modern western nation without. Same suicide rates. The point is debunked.
Nice logic, because we know that the United Kingdom and America are so interchangeable. There can be other factors at work beyond, Scotland has a higher suicide rate that the rest of the UK for example.
I'm not saying that guns are the reason that a lot of people kill themselves I'm saying that them being readily available gives people an "easier" option. It might be a small percent out of the total that do kill themselves with guns, but it's probably still there.
So... put some numbers up then. Provide some proof that your idea of trampling all over the rights of a nation would actually accomplish anything.
Rest of the western world.
The "rest of the western world" isn't doing any better than the US in terms of overall violent crime. There are many variables to consider beyond firearms availability. That point of view is founded in willful ignorance.
Lordhat wrote: I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.
That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.
This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.
And that is a purely facetious idea. If someone is dead set on suicide, they will do it no matter what implement they have handy to do it with. The US and UK have near identical suicide rates, 12 and 11.8 per 100k. In the US 50% are done with firearms, in the UK 50% are done by hanging.
So you have one modern western nation with readily available guns, one modern western nation without. Same suicide rates. The point is debunked.
Nice logic, because we know that the United Kingdom and America are so interchangeable. There can be other factors at work beyond, Scotland has a higher suicide rate that the rest of the UK for example.
I'm not saying that guns are the reason that a lot of people kill themselves I'm saying that them being readily available gives people an "easier" option. It might be a small percent out of the total that do kill themselves with guns, but it's probably still there.
So... put some numbers up then. Provide some proof that your idea of trampling all over the rights of a nation would actually accomplish anything.
Rest of the western world.
You mean like how France has higher suicide rates? South Korea, Japan, Finland, Belgium, Poland, Russia. All countries with gun numbers not even close to the US, and higher suicide rates. Canada, UK, Norway, Ireland, all nations that have near identical suicide rates.
So... we have all of these modern nations with equivalent or higher suicide rates, and drastically lower gun numbers. So where is the proof that taking guns away will lower suicide rates?
Nobody wants to take your guns away. Is it not unreasonable to surmise that some people might not have killed themselves if guns were harder to get?
Lordhat wrote: I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.
That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.
This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.
And that is a purely facetious idea. If someone is dead set on suicide, they will do it no matter what implement they have handy to do it with. The US and UK have near identical suicide rates, 12 and 11.8 per 100k. In the US 50% are done with firearms, in the UK 50% are done by hanging.
So you have one modern western nation with readily available guns, one modern western nation without. Same suicide rates. The point is debunked.
Nice logic, because we know that the United Kingdom and America are so interchangeable. There can be other factors at work beyond, Scotland has a higher suicide rate that the rest of the UK for example.
I'm not saying that guns are the reason that a lot of people kill themselves I'm saying that them being readily available gives people an "easier" option. It might be a small percent out of the total that do kill themselves with guns, but it's probably still there.
So... put some numbers up then. Provide some proof that your idea of trampling all over the rights of a nation would actually accomplish anything.
Rest of the western world.
You mean like how France has higher suicide rates? South Korea, Japan, Finland, Belgium, Poland, Russia. All countries with gun numbers not even close to the US, and higher suicide rates. Canada, UK, Norway, Ireland, all nations that have near identical suicide rates.
So... we have all of these modern nations with equivalent or higher suicide rates, and drastically lower gun numbers. So where is the proof that taking guns away will lower suicide rates?
Nobody wants to take your guns away. Is it not unreasonable to surmise that some people might not have killed themselves if guns were harder to get?
You act as if suicide isn't a personal choice. Obviously we don't want healthy, emotionally disturbed people killing themselves. But, I actually find it quite comforting that such an easy "out" is there for the terminally ill, victims of horrible diseases, etc.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/02 18:17:56
Medium of Death wrote: Nobody wants to take your guns away. Is it not unreasonable to surmise that some people might not have killed themselves if guns were harder to get?
And that rather simplistic statement ignores the different mechanisms, causes, and other factors that were mentioned and links provided for above
2014/02/02 18:20:50
Subject: Re:30 Americans killed daily by gun violence in 2013
You act as if suicide isn't a personal choice. Obviously we don't want healthy, emotionally disturbed people killing themselves. But, I actually find it quite comforting that such an easy "out" is there for the terminally ill, victims of horrible diseases, etc.
Are you that moronic? We aren't talking about Euthanasia or Right to Die.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/02 18:24:54
Medium of Death wrote: Are you that moronic? We aren't talking about Euthanasia or Right to Die.
Nice personal attack. Thank you for that.
Any time we talk about raw suicide numbers, we talk about the factors contributing to those numbers. If your argument is based off of raw suicide numbers, then you are essentially saying that all suicide is the same, and all of it is bad.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/02 18:25:58
I'd say, yeah it is unreasonable to assume that there will be any real impact.
The one suicide attempt I've been witness to was with an attempted prescription overdose. Despite the fact that there were numerous guns at hand.
With the massive amounts of suicide prevention training I've received over the last decade, I also know that the implement of suicide is meaningless. A person who wants to do it, will do it no matter what tool they have on hand. Someone who is suffering enough that they see death as a solution, isn't going to be squeamish about how it's achieved.
Folks who are acting out, wouldn't use a firearm in the first place, because eating a shotgun your not going to get time to be "rescued". If anything, the folks who use firearms are more deadset on the task, which again goes to show that it doesn't matter what tool they have on hand, they'll find a way.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2014/02/02 18:36:09
Subject: Re:30 Americans killed daily by gun violence in 2013
Medium of Death wrote: Are you that moronic? We aren't talking about Euthanasia or Right to Die.
Nice personal attack. Thank you for that.
Any time we talk about raw suicide numbers, we talk about the factors contributing to those numbers. If your argument is based off of raw suicide numbers, then you are essentially saying that all suicide is the same, and all of it is bad.
I didn't bring those figures into this. I just wanted to see if you could grasp a simple point and perhaps see that vulnerable people could expose themselves to harm because they had easier access to firearms.
Medium of Death wrote: Are you that moronic? We aren't talking about Euthanasia or Right to Die.
Nice personal attack. Thank you for that.
Any time we talk about raw suicide numbers, we talk about the factors contributing to those numbers. If your argument is based off of raw suicide numbers, then you are essentially saying that all suicide is the same, and all of it is bad.
I didn't bring those figures into this. I just wanted to see if you could grasp a simple point and perhaps see that vulnerable people could expose themselves to harm because they had easier access to firearms.
You should recognize the equal and opposite point - that firearms allow horribly unfortunate people a way out of their situation that is both less cruel and more certain than other methods.
Firearm suicides, in my opinion, are a completely separate issue from "gun violence," belonging to the class "suicide" rather than the class "violence."
If gun control was about reducing violence, then that would be the talking point. Gun control is about controlling people, therefore the talking points all pertain to issues surrounding firearms, irrelevant as they may be to "gun violence."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/02 18:50:58
Kanluwen wrote: They "do not generate the same outrage or legislative focus" because there is already a framework in place to prevent teenagers from drinking. You have to be 21 years old to buy alcohol or drink alcohol. Stores, dining establishments, and bars that sell alcohol to minors face pretty stiff fines and the loss of liquor licenses--which in turn leads to a further loss of money.
The same is true for pistols, only add in "federal NICS check" somewhere in there.
Seriously, that has to be one of the kookiest things I've ever heard you say, and I'm halfway sure you're Sandra Fluke. There's no framework in place to prevent teenagers from buying guns? Seriously?
2014/02/02 19:16:29
Subject: 30 Americans killed daily by gun violence in 2013
Kanluwen wrote: They "do not generate the same outrage or legislative focus" because there is already a framework in place to prevent teenagers from drinking. You have to be 21 years old to buy alcohol or drink alcohol. Stores, dining establishments, and bars that sell alcohol to minors face pretty stiff fines and the loss of liquor licenses--which in turn leads to a further loss of money.
The same is true for pistols, only add in "federal NICS check" somewhere in there.
Seriously, that has to be one of the kookiest things I've ever heard you say, and I'm halfway sure you're Sandra Fluke. There's no framework in place to prevent teenagers from buying guns? Seriously?
There's a framework in place to prevent teenagers from legally buying guns, certainly.
There is however precedent of parents/adults being prosecuted for providing alcohol to minors or minors getting access to alcohol in the house when something "tragic" happens. I can't think of any cases of prosecution when something similar happens with improperly secured firearms.
There might be cases where such a thing happened but I'm not aware of any off the top of my head.
2014/02/02 19:23:35
Subject: 30 Americans killed daily by gun violence in 2013
Kanluwen wrote: They "do not generate the same outrage or legislative focus" because there is already a framework in place to prevent teenagers from drinking. You have to be 21 years old to buy alcohol or drink alcohol. Stores, dining establishments, and bars that sell alcohol to minors face pretty stiff fines and the loss of liquor licenses--which in turn leads to a further loss of money.
The same is true for pistols, only add in "federal NICS check" somewhere in there.
Seriously, that has to be one of the kookiest things I've ever heard you say, and I'm halfway sure you're Sandra Fluke. There's no framework in place to prevent teenagers from buying guns? Seriously?
There's a framework in place to prevent teenagers from legally buying guns, certainly.
There is however precedent of parents/adults being prosecuted for providing alcohol to minors or minors getting access to alcohol in the house when something "tragic" happens. I can't think of any cases of prosecution when something similar happens with improperly secured firearms.
There might be cases where such a thing happened but I'm not aware of any off the top of my head.
You are kidding, right? Please tell me you were kidding.
Kanluwen wrote: They "do not generate the same outrage or legislative focus" because there is already a framework in place to prevent teenagers from drinking. You have to be 21 years old to buy alcohol or drink alcohol. Stores, dining establishments, and bars that sell alcohol to minors face pretty stiff fines and the loss of liquor licenses--which in turn leads to a further loss of money.
The same is true for pistols, only add in "federal NICS check" somewhere in there.
Seriously, that has to be one of the kookiest things I've ever heard you say, and I'm halfway sure you're Sandra Fluke. There's no framework in place to prevent teenagers from buying guns? Seriously?
There's a framework in place to prevent teenagers from legally buying guns, certainly.
There is however precedent of parents/adults being prosecuted for providing alcohol to minors or minors getting access to alcohol in the house when something "tragic" happens. I can't think of any cases of prosecution when something similar happens with improperly secured firearms.
There might be cases where such a thing happened but I'm not aware of any off the top of my head.
Well... before you start making arguments based off of that, maybe you should do some research.
Kanluwen wrote: They "do not generate the same outrage or legislative focus" because there is already a framework in place to prevent teenagers from drinking. You have to be 21 years old to buy alcohol or drink alcohol. Stores, dining establishments, and bars that sell alcohol to minors face pretty stiff fines and the loss of liquor licenses--which in turn leads to a further loss of money.
The same is true for pistols, only add in "federal NICS check" somewhere in there.
Seriously, that has to be one of the kookiest things I've ever heard you say, and I'm halfway sure you're Sandra Fluke. There's no framework in place to prevent teenagers from buying guns? Seriously?
There's a framework in place to prevent teenagers from legally buying guns, certainly.
There is however precedent of parents/adults being prosecuted for providing alcohol to minors or minors getting access to alcohol in the house when something "tragic" happens. I can't think of any cases of prosecution when something similar happens with improperly secured firearms.
There might be cases where such a thing happened but I'm not aware of any off the top of my head.
Well... before you start making arguments based off of that, maybe you should do some research.
Well tell you what, go digging around some more and find the tons of other cases. I just typed 4 words into google and shared the first 3 links. It's your argument, so why don't you go dig through the 14 million links and prove us wrong.
Or you could drop this foolish argument that alcohol is better "controlled" then guns are.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/02 19:36:57
Full Frontal Nerdity
2014/02/02 19:41:27
Subject: 30 Americans killed daily by gun violence in 2013
djones520 wrote: Well tell you what, go digging around some more and find the tons of other cases. I just typed 4 words into google and shared the first 3 links. It's your argument, so why don't you go dig through the 14 million links and prove us wrong.
Or you could drop this foolish argument that alcohol is better "controlled" then guns are.
Considering this is one of the very first results when searching for "Parents prosecuted for firearms related deaths", I think my argument still stands.
There definitely are prosecutions but by and large it seems to be restricted to incidents of toddlers to preteens.
2014/02/02 19:49:05
Subject: Re:30 Americans killed daily by gun violence in 2013
I'm not sure why that's an issue. If a parent hands over a gun to a kid who goes and commits a crime with that gun, they're potentially prosecuted as some form of accomplice, no? If a kid takes a firearm without the parents' knowledge, they're not. Similarly, if a parent provides alcohol for the kids to have a party, they're prosecuted; if the kid takes alcohol without the parents' knowledge, they're not.
My parents didn't lock up the booze when I was growing up. Nor, for the record, did they lock up the gun.
2014/02/02 19:50:57
Subject: 30 Americans killed daily by gun violence in 2013
djones520 wrote: Well tell you what, go digging around some more and find the tons of other cases. I just typed 4 words into google and shared the first 3 links. It's your argument, so why don't you go dig through the 14 million links and prove us wrong.
Or you could drop this foolish argument that alcohol is better "controlled" then guns are.
Considering this is one of the very first results when searching for "Parents prosecuted for firearms related deaths", I think my argument still stands.
There definitely are prosecutions but by and large it seems to be restricted to incidents of toddlers to preteens.
I found these literally within a minute of searching:
