Switch Theme:

Yet another reason for trigger-locks and gun safety  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

 whembly wrote:
However, support for gun rights/2nd amendment has risen considerably over the years.

Now the anti-2nd'er can truly say:
Thanks Obama!


See, the funny thing about is, you're saying that ironically, but by any reasonable metric President Obama has been the weakest president on "gun control" in my lifetime. He let the AWB lapse with zero effort to try and renew it other than some lip service, which is good because the AWB was incredible stupid, he's signed 2 gun laws and both actually strengthened gun rights, and he passed a bunch of executive orders that either have nothing to do with gun control, are simply a statement of priority, or have no teeth whatsoever.

Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan supported an assault weapon ban, endorsed the Brady bill, signed the FOPA (which banned all new machine guns, making them only the purview of the very wealthy), signed a bill as governor banning open carry, and is remembered as being a strong defender of the second amendment, because feth your facts, I have strong feelings.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

You can truly say that because:
a) He knows it's a losing battle to push for stricter gun-controls
b) rather politicize it to keep the anti-gunz crowd riled up

He’s not about to try building consensus on gun policy in good faith (same goes to Bloomberg, Brady Campaign, etc). He’ll take the same approach he’s taken throughout his presidency, which is to delegitimize opponents of his proposed sweeping comprehensive agenda as irrational, self-interested enemies of decency and progress.

Like. Every. Political. Football. In. Existence.

By any reasonable measure, if Obama wanted to push for more gun control agendas, he would. But, it's to his benefit to keep the status quo and keep this issue "hot".

Yes, that's extremely cynical, but he had his chance in the first two years of his Presidency, with having Democratic majority in both houses too...

edit: can't spelt today.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/10/07 15:54:01


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 CptJake wrote:
Why should the federal Gov't be able to dictate what meets MY requirement for 'stored securely'? Or for that matter have any say in wether or not I feel the need to 'secure' my firearms?
If your gun was only a danger to you then I'm sure no one would care what you did with it. The problem is, your gun is a danger to other members of society too. You can argue that it isn't, but we're posting in a topic where a little girl was killed because someone owned a gun and didn't secure it properly. Other people should not have to risk their lives just because you want to own a gun, which is why your own standard of stored securely might not be good enough. When guns stop killing people who aren't their owners, then people who aren't gun owners will stop taking an interest in gun safety.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/07 15:55:15


 
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

 whembly wrote:
You can truly say that because:
a) He knows it's a losing battle to push for stricter gun-controls
b) rather politicize it to keep the anti-gunz crowd riled up


So far as A, absolutely. He knows which battles are worth fighting, and which ones to soft-pedal, just like every other politician, ever.

I would disagree on B, because... to what end? Keep them riled up so they can continue to do absolutely nothing notable? Come on. We're coming up on the 7th annual "Obama's Gonna Take Your Guns" AR-15 price hike. It's time to stop playing pretend, IMO.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence

 Smacks wrote:
 CptJake wrote:
Why should the federal Gov't be able to dictate what meets MY requirement for 'stored securely'? Or for that matter have any say in wether or not I feel the need to 'secure' my firearms?
If your gun was only a danger to you then I'm sure no one would care what you did with it. The problem is, your gun is a danger to other members of society too. You can argue that it isn't, but we're posting in a topic where a little girl was killed because someone owned a gun and didn't secure it properly. Other people should not have to risk their lives just because you want to own a gun, which is why your own standard of stored securely might not be good enough. When guns stop killing people who aren't their owners, then people who aren't gun owners will stop taking an interest in gun safety.


Is it a FEDERAL responsibility to ensure safety in this way?

No. It is not. And should not be. States and local governments have it covered.

As for the part I highlighted in orange: My firearms are not a danger to me. At all. And, I just checked, none of MY firearms are missing so none of mine were involved in this one case which is a rarity among deaths in this age group anyway. And 100s of millions of other legally owned firearms were also not involved and never will be involved in this type of case. As I previously pointed out, many kids are killed by accidental poisoning, yet I don't see you or others raising a gak fit and wanting Federal laws to govern how one must store household cleaners and medicines.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/07 16:12:36


Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 CptJake wrote:
As I previously pointed out, many kids are killed by accidental poisoning, yet I don't see you or others raising a gak fit and wanting Federal laws to govern how one must store household cleaners and medicines.
Because there is no danger that someone walking past your house will suddenly be dead because you didn't put the lid on the bleach properly. It's mostly a risk to you and your family, which is as I said before, why it is mostly your business. If you suddenly start poisoning the general public then people will be up your ass about it pretty damn quick, regardless of the percentage of the population you didn't kill.

As for the federal thing. That was my bad if you were suggesting that it should be state law I must have misunderstood you. I assumed you were talking about your own standards by the way you capitalized the word MY. If you agree that society deserves some input at a state level, then we are back in agreement.

Also I'm not having a gak fit. My first post in the topic was to say that I don't think this is a gun control issue. I don't agree with inspections. The only reason I'm posting here at all is because people keep making bad arguments which I think deserve contradicting.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/07 17:10:57


 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter




Seattle

No. It is not. And should not be. States and local governments have it covered.


They obviously don't, since we had two children-shooting-children incidents in two days.

It is not enough to have laws that punish those who are guilty after the crime has been committed, that doesn't bring someone's dead child back to life. The point of laws is to discourage the commission of crimes in the first place.

It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised. 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

 Psienesis wrote:
No. It is not. And should not be. States and local governments have it covered.


They obviously don't, since we had two children-shooting-children incidents in two days.
Two days is an absurdly small sample size. Likewise, we're talking a nation of over 300 million people with about as many firearms. That is a *very* low rate of incidence that you would struggle to reduce significantly through preventative legal means without having to resort to measures that would run into significant legal barriers.

 sebster wrote:

I don't agree that firearms are more regulated than cars. Car manufacturing, sale, purchase and use is massively regulated by all levels of government.
Yes, apologies if I didn't make it clear, I unfortunately don't have time to address your entire post (which made valid points), but wanted to quickly address this. I was acknoledging that automobiles are much more regulated than firearms, and my point really was that even with all the regulation that automobiles & motorcycles have, their accident rates are orders of magnitude larger than with firearms, showing that, at least in terms of accidents (as opposed to homicides & suicides), that extensive safety regulation mandates probably don't have the same public-safety interest.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/07 17:48:12


IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence

 Smacks wrote:
 CptJake wrote:
As I previously pointed out, many kids are killed by accidental poisoning, yet I don't see you or others raising a gak fit and wanting Federal laws to govern how one must store household cleaners and medicines.
Because there is no danger that someone walking past your house will suddenly be dead because you didn't put the lid on the bleach properly.



No one walking by my house, or the houses of the owners of hundreds of millions of legally owned firearms is really in any danger they will suddenly be dead either. You're being silly to imply otherwise.

Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

 Smacks wrote:
 CptJake wrote:
As I previously pointed out, many kids are killed by accidental poisoning, yet I don't see you or others raising a gak fit and wanting Federal laws to govern how one must store household cleaners and medicines.
Because there is no danger that someone walking past your house will suddenly be dead because you didn't put the lid on the bleach properly. It's mostly a risk to you and your family, which is as I said before, why it is mostly your business. If you suddenly start poisoning the general public then people will be up your ass about it pretty damn quick, regardless of the percentage of the population you didn't kill.


I think you are missing an important part of the equation here.

You admit that that bleach isn't going to hurt anyone unless deliberate action is taken.

You fail to see that the same is true for guns. Unless deliberate action(or gross negligence, which can also happen with the bleach) is taken than nobody is going to get hurt by my gun being in my nightstand or closet.

Sure, my hypothetical kid could walk up to my gun and shoot himself or someone. He could also drink the gallon container of bleach, or get someone else to drink it. In either case, I need to teach him not to drink the bleach or play with the gun. Its not the gun/bleach that is the issue here, the issue is how I've trained my kid.

If anything, the bleach is far more dangerous. Little kids eat anything and everything. He's far more likely to get the cap off a bottle of bleach and take a swig than he is to find a gun, load the gun, switch the safety off, and then manage to pull the trigger while its aiming at himself or someone else.

Sure, the gun might have been loaded and left around with the safety off and a round in the chamber. But thats just general negligence, no different than leaving a bottle of bleach around with no lid where the kid can get it.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 CptJake wrote:
 Smacks wrote:
 CptJake wrote:
As I previously pointed out, many kids are killed by accidental poisoning, yet I don't see you or others raising a gak fit and wanting Federal laws to govern how one must store household cleaners and medicines.
Because there is no danger that someone walking past your house will suddenly be dead because you didn't put the lid on the bleach properly.



No one walking by my house, or the houses of the owners of hundreds of millions of legally owned firearms is really in any danger they will suddenly be dead either. You're being silly to imply otherwise.


Does the yard count? If so I have to over here...and just remove...this...and neutralize the tripwire here...and..ok yea I completely agree!

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

 Psienesis wrote:
No. It is not. And should not be. States and local governments have it covered.


They obviously don't, since we had two children-shooting-children incidents in two days.

It is not enough to have laws that punish those who are guilty after the crime has been committed, that doesn't bring someone's dead child back to life. The point of laws is to discourage the commission of crimes in the first place.


They absolutely have it covered and you're making a very flawed argument with that statement. Gun storage laws are the subject of the same enforcement as every other law. When you are caught breaking the law you are charged with a crime and prosecuted. That's how the judicial system and law enforcement works in this country. There is no legal way for the police to pre-emptively apprehend you for breaking a law. You are innocent until proven guilty and the police cannot search people or residences looking for violations without establishing reasonable suspicion/probable cause or getting a warrant.

Gun storage laws punish people who are caught improperly storing their guns just like speeding laws punish people who are caught speeding, burglary laws punish people that are caught stealing, etc. Our police force is entirely reactionary not pre-emptive.

Drunk driving is illegal yet people are still maimed and killed by drunk driving because the law doesn't stop people from driving drunk it only punishes people after they are caught driving drunk. That doesn't mean that drunk driving laws are ineffective because there is no other way for drunk driving laws to work. The police can't arrest somebody for driving drunk until they are actually driving drunk and by that point the drunk driver is already a danger to him/herself and others.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence

 Psienesis wrote:
No. It is not. And should not be. States and local governments have it covered.


They obviously don't, since we had two children-shooting-children incidents in two days.

It is not enough to have laws that punish those who are guilty after the crime has been committed, that doesn't bring someone's dead child back to life. The point of laws is to discourage the commission of crimes in the first place.


Why stop with gunz? Make improperly storing household cleaners a crime. Make having swimming pools a crime. Make allowing kids to play in the bath a crime. Make transporting your children via an automobile a crime. All of those things cause more deaths to kids than gun accidents.

And for gaks and giggles, how the heck to you suppose making gun storage laws a Federal issue rather than a state/local issue fixes a damned thing? As has already been pointed out, the feds cannot enforce them unless you are also advocating for a massive increase in federal LEOs and a repealing of the 4th amendment. The laws would only ever be able to be enforced after the fact/after the kid is dead. If people are willing to ignore current laws (and they are) how would making it a Federal law be any different?

Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

 CptJake wrote:
 Psienesis wrote:
No. It is not. And should not be. States and local governments have it covered.


They obviously don't, since we had two children-shooting-children incidents in two days.

It is not enough to have laws that punish those who are guilty after the crime has been committed, that doesn't bring someone's dead child back to life. The point of laws is to discourage the commission of crimes in the first place.


Why stop with gunz? Make improperly storing household cleaners a crime. Make having swimming pools a crime. Make allowing kids to play in the bath a crime. Make transporting your children via an automobile a crime. All of those things cause more deaths to kids than gun accidents.

And for gaks and giggles, how the heck to you suppose making gun storage laws a Federal issue rather than a state/local issue fixes a damned thing? As has already been pointed out, the feds cannot enforce them unless you are also advocating for a massive increase in federal LEOs and a repealing of the 4th amendment. The laws would only ever be able to be enforced after the fact/after the kid is dead. If people are willing to ignore current laws (and they are) how would making it a Federal law be any different?


Additionally, to claim that gun storage laws weren't discouraging improper gun storage you'd have to show that crimes caused by improper gun storage were increasing in frequency (which nobody has shown to be the case) and that state and local authorities were failing to prosecute people who violated gun storage and handling laws (which nobody has shown to be the case). If crimes caused by improper storage aren't increasing and prosecutors are prosecuting violators then the law is working as well as it can.

There's no way to legislate away the ability of people to make bad decisions we can only punish people for making bad decisions that cause harm to others.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 CptJake wrote:
 Psienesis wrote:
No. It is not. And should not be. States and local governments have it covered.


They obviously don't, since we had two children-shooting-children incidents in two days.

It is not enough to have laws that punish those who are guilty after the crime has been committed, that doesn't bring someone's dead child back to life. The point of laws is to discourage the commission of crimes in the first place.


Why stop with gunz? Make improperly storing household cleaners a crime. Make having swimming pools a crime. Make allowing kids to play in the bath a crime. Make transporting your children via an automobile a crime. All of those things cause more deaths to kids than gun accidents.

And for gaks and giggles, how the heck to you suppose making gun storage laws a Federal issue rather than a state/local issue fixes a damned thing? As has already been pointed out, the feds cannot enforce them unless you are also advocating for a massive increase in federal LEOs and a repealing of the 4th amendment. The laws would only ever be able to be enforced after the fact/after the kid is dead. If people are willing to ignore current laws (and they are) how would making it a Federal law be any different?


Because people can die by a means does not mean the means is inherently dangerous.

Yes people fall in swimming pools and drown.

In 2013 approximately 33,000 people died to gun related deaths. Albeit 2/3rds of those were suicides.

683 people died from unintentional swimming pool accidents between the Years of 2005-2009. I couldn't find more current data for that.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6119a4.htm

If you consider 683 people accidentally dying over a 5 year period and 11,700 people dying over a 1 year period there is a two order of magnitude greater difference.

Here's another statistical number.

2,900 people total died during 9/11 or the rescue operation afterwards. Our country signed into act various government things that greatly increased "national security" and took away many rights and privileges we once had. We also went to war in two countries over it for a war/occupation that lasted approximately 10 years.

That is 1/4th the amount of people who die to domestic gun related events, which are not suicides.

So yeah we can say anything can kill so why stop at guns, so therefore guns should not be regulated. However the number of deaths is a large issue. Its a number 400% larger than the death toll in 9/11 which our country went re-tard-ed over.


This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/10/07 18:18:00


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 CptJake wrote:
No one walking by my house, or the houses of the owners of hundreds of millions of legally owned firearms is really in any danger they will suddenly be dead either. You're being silly to imply otherwise.
Apart from the little girl we are discussing. It evidently does happen, and its especially frightening for people because you can't defend against it. It's okay for you to say the risk is small, but you're not the only one taking it. Some people don't see why they should be forced to take that risk at all.
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

 Smacks wrote:
 CptJake wrote:
No one walking by my house, or the houses of the owners of hundreds of millions of legally owned firearms is really in any danger they will suddenly be dead either. You're being silly to imply otherwise.
Apart from the little girl we are discussing. It evidently does happen, and its especially frightening for people because you can't defend against it. It's okay for you to say the risk is small, but you're not the only one taking it. Some people don't see why they should be forced to take that risk at all.


You take more risk crossing the street at a busy intersection than you do because your neighbor owns a gun.

Really, guns are so far down on the threat list that they are a non-issue. We're talking a level so small it could be the margin of error for another category.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Most Glorious Grey Seer





Everett, WA

 Ouze wrote:
Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan supported an assault weapon ban, endorsed the Brady bill, signed the FOPA (which banned all new machine guns, making them only the purview of the very wealthy), signed a bill as governor banning open carry, and is remembered as being a strong defender of the second amendment, because feth your facts, I have strong feelings.

Talk Radio is responsible for much of this. It seems that they're confusing Ronald Reagan the politician with Ronald Reagan's characters in the movies he did. Talk Radio is also quick to play his (honestly) inspiring speeches but slow to show the overall track record. Reagan did many great things as President but he also made many compromises with the Democrats to get those things done. The hard right tend to forget that as they chomp on the red meat being tossed to them by their favorite host.


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

 Smacks wrote:
 CptJake wrote:
No one walking by my house, or the houses of the owners of hundreds of millions of legally owned firearms is really in any danger they will suddenly be dead either. You're being silly to imply otherwise.
Apart from the little girl we are discussing. It evidently does happen, and its especially frightening for people because you can't defend against it. It's okay for you to say the risk is small, but you're not the only one taking it. Some people don't see why they should be forced to take that risk at all.


It's an extremely rare occurence. There is no evidence that children are shooting other children with improperly stored firearms with anything remotely approaching regularity. There are literally tens of millions of gun owners in the US in possession of hundreds of millions of guns and children shooting children with improperly stored guns rarely happens. You are suggesting that we need to radically transform our entire judicial system, legislative process, and law enforcement on the basis of an extremely rare occurrence.

Everything that happened in the incident in the OP is already illegal. People are going to be prosecuted and punished for what happened. That is the system we have, it is not perfect but it has been in place for the entirety of our national history. We cannot twist the system into something different just for one minor aspect of gun ownership. That would not be legal or practical.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Grey Templar wrote:
You take more risk crossing the street at a busy intersection than you do because your neighbor owns a gun.
That's probably not true. I'm pretty good at crossing the street. I look both ways, wait for the lights to change and the cars to stop and everything. There are lots of things I can do to stay safe crossing the road (including avoiding busy intersections). I'm not so good at dodging bullets.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/07 18:30:22


 
   
Made in us
Most Glorious Grey Seer





Everett, WA

 Smacks wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
You take more risk crossing the street at a busy intersection than you do because your neighbor owns a gun.

That's probably not true. I'm pretty good at crossing the street. I look both ways, wait for the lights to change and the cars to stop and everything. There are lots of things I can do to stay safe crossing the road (including avoiding busy intersections). I'm not so good at dodging bullets.

This begs the question; just how many times has your neighbor tried to shoot you?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/07 18:37:18


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence

blaktoof wrote:
 CptJake wrote:
 Psienesis wrote:
No. It is not. And should not be. States and local governments have it covered.


They obviously don't, since we had two children-shooting-children incidents in two days.

It is not enough to have laws that punish those who are guilty after the crime has been committed, that doesn't bring someone's dead child back to life. The point of laws is to discourage the commission of crimes in the first place.


Why stop with gunz? Make improperly storing household cleaners a crime. Make having swimming pools a crime. Make allowing kids to play in the bath a crime. Make transporting your children via an automobile a crime. All of those things cause more deaths to kids than gun accidents.

And for gaks and giggles, how the heck to you suppose making gun storage laws a Federal issue rather than a state/local issue fixes a damned thing? As has already been pointed out, the feds cannot enforce them unless you are also advocating for a massive increase in federal LEOs and a repealing of the 4th amendment. The laws would only ever be able to be enforced after the fact/after the kid is dead. If people are willing to ignore current laws (and they are) how would making it a Federal law be any different?


Because people can die by a means does not mean the means is inherently dangerous.

Yes people fall in swimming pools and drown.

In 2013 approximately 33,000 people died to gun related deaths. Albeit 2/3rds of those were suicides.

683 people died from unintentional swimming pool accidents between the Years of 2005-2009. I couldn't find more current data for that.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6119a4.htm

If you consider 683 people accidentally dying over a 5 year period and 11,700 people dying over a 1 year period there is a two order of magnitude greater difference.

Here's another statistical number.

2,900 people total died during 9/11 or the rescue operation afterwards. Our country signed into act various government things that greatly increased "national security" and took away many rights and privileges we once had. We also went to war in two countries over it for a war/occupation that lasted approximately 10 years.

That is 1/4th the amount of people who die to domestic gun related events, which are not suicides.

So yeah we can say anything can kill so why stop at guns, so therefore guns should not be regulated. However the number of deaths is a large issue. Its a number 400% larger than the death toll in 9/11 which our country went re-tard-ed over.




You're mixing in intention homicides with accidental deaths. If you want to do that, you need to add in intentional homicides by other than guns.

But that is not the issue at hand, we are talking about accidental deaths. And using CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/safechild/NAP/background.html

Table 1 shows the top 5 accidental causes of child death. Guns don't make the list for any of the age groupings.

This one breaks it down nicely too (also CDC)



Note, for kids (up to 24 years old) unintentional firearms deaths is 39 for 2013. Drowning kills well over 1000. Poison (unintentional) kills over 3k.

It would appear laws attempting to preempt those thousands of deaths would be more important than new laws hoping to prevent less than 50 deaths.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/07 18:40:09


Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. 
   
Made in gb
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God






Inside your mind, corrupting the pathways

That pre-supposes that preventions in place for each mode of death are equally effective, and the chances of death per encounter are the same, as well as a large number of other assumptions.

   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence

 SilverMK2 wrote:
That pre-supposes that preventions in place for each mode of death are equally effective, and the chances of death per encounter are the same, as well as a large number of other assumptions.


Give me a break, to think you can come up with federal legislation and enforcement there of to reduce less than 50 accidental child deaths a year in a population of over 300 million people is just silly. That is the bad assumption being made in this topic.

And obviously the chances of death per encounter are high enough for poisoning, drowning, and the other leading accidental causes of death because they have orders of magnitude more victims.

Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. 
   
Made in us
Sniping Reverend Moira





Cincinnati, Ohio

 Psienesis wrote:
No. It is not. And should not be. States and local governments have it covered.


They obviously don't, since we had two children-shooting-children incidents in two days.

It is not enough to have laws that punish those who are guilty after the crime has been committed, that doesn't bring someone's dead child back to life. The point of laws is to discourage the commission of crimes in the first place.


The laws for criminally negligent manslaughter have that covered if they'd enforce them.

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





Prestor Jon wrote:
You are suggesting that we need to radically transform our entire judicial system, legislative process, and law enforcement on the basis of an extremely rare occurrence.
Actually I'm not. I've been against the whole federally mandated gun cabinet idea from the start. I believe my original argument was that gun owners can't claim "it's no one else's business", because sometimes guns do effect other people. And if something might kill you then it's very much your business. It's one thing to say "I disagree with you" it's another to say "you have no right to any opinion". Wouldn't you agree?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/10/07 18:56:20


 
   
Made in us
Most Glorious Grey Seer





Everett, WA

Okay, I just saw a headline claiming that gun sales have jumped. Given that this is probably driven by the President's recent remarks, I have to wonder if he doesn't secretly have stock in some of these firearm manufacturers. If not, he's really missing out.


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





for 0-24 I see the following for homicide firearms, which does not include "unintentional discharge" deaths from some kid holding a gun and it going off on "accident"

39 for 1-4
48 for 5-9
94 for 10-14
3,704 for 15-24

so for kids up to 24 that's 3884. Which is almost 50% more than the people who died in 9/11.

It is almost twice the number of US servicemen who died in war in Afghanistan during the years 2001 to 2014, except of course this is over 1 year in the US compared to 14 years of war...

The website iCasualties.org lists, as of October 1, 2015, 2,271 servicemembers as having died in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan.

If we assume the homicide rate is more or less steady, then we have 54,376 people between the age of 1-24 who died in the US during the duration of the Afghanistan war in which 2,271 US service-people died.

Yep drowning kills a lot of kids too. Ironically that number decreases as kids get older until they hit they 15-24 mark and then puberty which has been shown in studies to make people actually stupider in many regards and we see unintentional drowning numbers spike up 500%...yep.

However I was not mixing intentional homicides with accidental deaths. That number is 11,208, and does not included unintentional homicides with firearms.

Drowning is drowning, its hard to prevent that. It is not hard to require people to lock up their guns. Guns and drowning are not related, usually, and one can be reduced by requiring people lock their guns up. Drowning is hard to discuss because those numbers are for all sources of drowning. Boating, swimming pools, bath tubs, etc.

regardless in the year 2013 more people died from firearm related homicides in the 1-24 age group in t he US than US service people died in the entirety of the afghan war/occupation over 14 years.

More toddlers died from firearm homicide than police died in the line of duty the same year.

Is it really such a big deal to have a law requiring guns to be in a locked cabinet when not in use by their lawful owner? There could be no requirement to have the cabinet checked, but if the gun was found to be used in a crime the owner could be liable to a significant extent if their gun was not properly stored. Obviously if it was locked and someone broke in and got the key, the owner had done their part.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/07 19:09:40


 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 Smacks wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
You are suggesting that we need to radically transform our entire judicial system, legislative process, and law enforcement on the basis of an extremely rare occurrence.
Actually I'm not. I've been against the whole federally mandated gun cabinet idea from the start. I believe my original argument was that gun owners can't claim "it's no one else's business", because sometimes guns do effect other people. And if something might kill you then it's very much your business. It's one thing to say "I disagree with you" it's another to say "you have no right to any opinion". Wouldn't you agree?


What a silly argument that can be used for anything. You just killed the most second most hallowed protection in the US -WHICH YOU DON'T HAVE-constitution protections against illegal searches.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Sniping Reverend Moira





Cincinnati, Ohio

blaktoof wrote:


....out of context appeals to emotion


We're talking about unintentional deaths. Which are listed on that graph. Which you ignored.


Is it really such a big deal to have a law requiring guns to be in a locked cabinet when not in use by their lawful owner? There could be no requirement to have the cabinet checked, but if the gun was found to be used in a crime the owner could be liable to a significant extent if their gun was not properly stored. Obviously if it was locked and someone broke in and got the key, the owner had done their part.


This makes little to no sense.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/07 19:07:57


 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: