Kids shooting kids

[dwar0123]

No it's not. Not at all. Spin all you want, I'm right on this point.

No you're not.

 

In fact, you are so wrong that it is actually somewhat difficult to figure out how to explain it.

 

 

To even understand where you went wrong I have to un-assume many things I take for granted when speaking to an educated person.

 

One being, that laws are meant to legislate people and how they interact with objects, never objects in isolation. Cause you know, they are inanimate and that would be stupid.

 

they are inanimate objects and thus harm no one on their own.

Of course this is true, but to even doubt its truth you have to un-assume the above.

as for guns

This isn't limited to guns, this is true for every object. As we legislate about how people interact with objects all the time, linking only guns to the above, without explaining why guns are special, renders your statement rhetorically devoid of content and thus wrong.

 

People don't kill people, guns used by people kill people.

Thus no laws about guns.

 

Car's don't kill people, people driving cars kill people.

Car's don't kill people, people repairing them improperly kills people.

Car's don't kill people, people manufacturing them improperly kills people.

 

Thus no laws about cars.

[barmar]

Honestly I am surprised that the NRA spends only 10% of their revenue on lobbying. I would have thought it was much higher.

I was surprised, too.

What else do they do?

Someone mentioned a magazine. :)

 

Beside their political activities, they seem kind of like the ACBL: they publish a magazine, they train and accredit instructors, they organize gun clubs, they host conventions.

[Trinidad]

Nuclear bombs don't kill people, faulty traffic lights don't kill people, poison does not kill people, cocaine doesn't kill people, electric chairs don't kill people. We will hand out some nukes, we won't fix faulty traffic lights, marketing cyanide to kids is okay, cocaine should be available from 7-Eleven and electric chairs should be sold at IKEA in the versions "Völt", "Åmpere" and "Wätt".

 

Bottom line: "Guns don't kill people" is bogus. There is no spin: Guns do kill people. Without guns, the two year old girl would still be alive.

 

Blackshoe can go and tell that five year old that the gun didn't kill his sister, he did. I will tell him instead that this was disaster waiting to happen. If he wouldn't have been there, his sister might have ended up dead anyway, simply because the gun was there. If the gun wouldn't have been there, his sister would be alive today.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

As for guns, they are inanimate objects and thus harm no one on their own.

 

This is true, and guns "on their own" are fine with me.

 

The problem is, people pick them up.

[blackshoe]

Nuclear bombs don't kill people, faulty traffic lights don't kill people, poison does not kill people, cocaine doesn't kill people, electric chairs don't kill people. We will hand out some nukes, we won't fix faulty traffic lights, marketing cyanide to kids is okay, cocaine should be available from 7-Eleven and electric chairs should be sold at IKEA in the versions "Völt", "Åmpere" and "Wätt".

 

Bottom line: "Guns don't kill people" is bogus. There is no spin: Guns do kill people. Without guns, the two year old girl would still be alive.

 

Blackshoe can go and tell that five year old that the gun didn't kill his sister, he did. I will tell him instead that this was disaster waiting to happen. If he wouldn't have been there, his sister might have ended up dead anyway, simply because the gun was there. If the gun wouldn't have been there, his sister would be alive today.

 

Rik

This is why I should know better than to participate in these threads. I'm done. You guys keep on yammering if you want.

[PassedOut]

The gun was not damaged

 

Ninnemann's wife, Marie, took a gun from the basement, but didn't know how to load the shells. She took the weapon outside and hit the bear on the head, giving her husband his chance to escape. Pointing the gun at the bear, the couple backtracked into their cabin.

Nor was the husband shot...

[Trinidad]

LOL.

 

Moral of the story: It would probably have been better if she had taken a baseball bat, a skillet, or a guitar. At least she wouldn't have wasted time trying to load the baseball bat, or to tune the guitar. :D

 

Rik

[barmar]

I don't think that anyone has ever claimed that guns have never been used for reasonable purposes. Some people have successfully defended themselves from attacks by using a gun.

 

But the issue is whether the good outweighs the harm. Murders, suicides, and accidents are far more common results than self defense. I think it's something like a 3:1 ratio.

[PassedOut]

Saw this piece in the Post today: Jeffrey Nugent says his brother Ted Nugent is wrong on background checks

 

Ted and I recently attended the NRA convention in Houston, where he delivered the gathering’s final speech and continued his ardent defense of the Second Amendment. Ted and I have hunted together for decades, and we legally own a large number of guns. We both understand that guns constitute deadly force, so safety is foremost in our minds. It’s part of responsible gun ownership.

 

And I agree with Ted that our constitutional right to bear arms should not be undermined. I want all those who are qualified to purchase a gun to be able to do so. But — and here is where I part ways with my brother — not everyone is qualified to own a gun, so expanded background checks should be a legislative priority.

 

I believe strongly that expanding and improving mandatory background checks will keep a lot of people who aren’t entitled to Second Amendment rights from having easy access to guns. As of today, a convicted felon can find a gun show or a private seller and buy a firearm without a background check. That loophole should be closed. Every gun transaction must include a thorough background check. Why would responsible gun owners want to protect people who threaten not only our safety but our gun rights?

 

The NRA has it wrong: Irresponsible gun owners are bad for everyone. If you shouldn’t have access to a gun, then there should be no way for you to access a gun! Can anyone argue with that?

Evidently, yes.

:(

[mike777]

Saw this piece in the Post today: Jeffrey Nugent says his brother Ted Nugent is wrong on background checks

 

 

Evidently, yes.

:(

 

 

this continues the false very false theme that the right to bear arms was created by the bill of rights...it was not...

 

please read your history..it existed before....

 

Second Amendment did not create any rights.

 

People seem to forget the bill of rights is all about limiting govt....one may even go further and say it is about limiting the majority of voters, the tyranny of democracy.

 

---

 

 

As we all know the bill of rights has been voted down in poll after poll over decades and decades.

 

--

 

 

Please read Madison or Jefferson but please read Plato....on this issue.

[Winstonm]

this continues the false very false theme that the right to bear arms was created by the bill of rights...it was not...

 

please read your history..it existed before....

 

Second Amendment did not create any rights.

 

People seem to forget the bill of rights is all about limiting govt....one may even go further and say it is about limiting the majority of voters, the tyranny of democracy.

 

---

 

 

As we all know the bill of rights has been voted down in poll after poll over decades and decades.

 

--

 

 

Please read Madison or Jefferson but please read Plato....on this issue.

 

You forgot to mention Leo Strauss and Ayn Rand.

[billw55]

I don't think that anyone has ever claimed that guns have never been used for reasonable purposes. Some people have successfully defended themselves from attacks by using a gun.

 

But the issue is whether the good outweighs the harm. Murders, suicides, and accidents are far more common results than self defense. I think it's something like a 3:1 ratio.

There must be a helluva lot of accidents then, because even the most conservative figures for self defense that I can find substantially outnumber murders and suicides together.

 

Of course this does not take into account nonfatal gun crime, which might be much higher than murders.

[barmar]

There must be lots of non-fatal gun injuries (I guess most people aren't that good a shot, and doctors are pretty good at patching up shooting victims). From http://www.heedinggodscall.org/content/pfctoolkit-10

Everytime a gun injures or kills in self-defense, one is used:

 

11 times for a completed or attempted suicide

7 times in a criminal assault or homicide

4 times in an unintentional shooting death or injury

 

Source: Journal of Trauma, injury, Infection and Critical Care (1998)

 

I know that's 15 years old, so the precise statistics have surely changed, but I doubt they've shifted so much that the point is lost.

[billw55]

There must be lots of non-fatal gun injuries (I guess most people aren't that good a shot, and doctors are pretty good at patching up shooting victims). From http://www.heedinggo...t/pfctoolkit-10

 

 

I know that's 15 years old, so the precise statistics have surely changed, but I doubt they've shifted so much that the point is lost.

 

But in turn, these figures ignore the (much more frequent) defensive uses of guns that do not involve injuries, or even firing the weapon - merely displaying it is sufficient.

[onoway]

But in turn, these figures ignore the (much more frequent) defensive uses of guns that do not involve injuries, or even firing the weapon - merely displaying it is sufficient.

Then perhaps the NRA ought to sell signs like alarm companies do for people to post prominently on their front lawns :

 

Member of the NRA. This house protected by guns and people not afraid to use them.

 

You could even have what appeared to be bullet holes artisically arranged here and there through the sign (like one I saw in Mexico plaintively telling people not to shoot the signs :P )

 

People wouldn't actually even have to have guns at all or be a member of the NRA! What a deal! Mind you the police would likely think people had a grow op or something in there and the neighbors might be a little alarmed thinking they had a nut case in their community (or maybe want to buy signs for their houses too, you just never know) but minor details could be worked out. There's a biz op for someone..

[billw55]

Actually, I have seen NRA member stickers. Mostly on cars, but hey, someone might stick one on their mailbox . Don't know if it would deter anyone or not.

[onoway]

Actually, I have seen NRA member stickers. Mostly on cars, but hey, someone might stick one on their mailbox . Don't know if it would deter anyone or not.

Yes, that's the problem with deterrents you can never be sure if they were effective because you don't know if they were ever needed.

 

They say it pays to advertise...I think a sticker on a mailbox might not be seen, you'd be best to brand the place with a big sign that couldn't be missed. Or two - one in front and one in back. Both together way cheaper than a box of ammo, with money left over to brand your vehicle too!

[barmar]

Yes, that's the problem with deterrents you can never be sure if they were effective because you don't know if they were ever needed.

I had my apartment sprayed with elephant repellant. It seems to be working well, I haven't seen any elephants here.

[kenberg]

I had my apartment sprayed with elephant repellant. It seems to be working well, I haven't seen any elephants here.

 

Good plan! It is my understanding that, at least around here, elephant repellant has a 100% success rate. Very few products can make that claim.

 

Imo, the single most important prerequisite for the effective use of statistics is total commitment to their accurate use. To mix threads a bit, the article Mike cited about schools in LA cited evidence that students who had been suspended from schools were more likely to drop out of school than students who have not been suspended from school. Uh, yeah. I can believe that. The question is so what?

 

I have great distrust of statistical arguments for or against almost anything unless I am willing to take the time to look into the methodology, the assumptions, and the ideological predispositions of the presenter. I look much more to my direct experience and evaluate it as best I can. Some sensible but by no means confiscatory gun regulation makes sense to me. I have no statistics to prove this is best, but I also distrust any statistics anyone supplies, for or against. Lies, damn lies, and statistics is more than just a clever remark.

 

Owning a gun shoould be a heavy responsibility. Loading it an d firing it, or threatening to fire it, should be an even greater responsibility. If this responsibility is put front and center, a lot of other issues would take their proper place.

[Winstonm]

Good plan! It is my understanding that, at least around here, elephant repellant has a 100% success rate. Very few products can make that claim.

 

Imo, the single most important prerequisite for the effective use of statistics is total commitment to their accurate use. To mix threads a bit, the article Mike cited about schools in LA cited evidence that students who had been suspended from schools were more likely to drop out of school than students who have not been suspended from school. Uh, yeah. I can believe that. The question is so what?

 

I have great distrust of statistical arguments for or against almost anything unless I am willing to take the time to look into the methodology, the assumptions, and the ideological predispositions of the presenter. I look much more to my direct experience and evaluate it as best I can. Some sensible but by no means confiscatory gun regulation makes sense to me. I have no statistics to prove this is best, but I also distrust any statistics anyone supplies, for or against. Lies, damn lies, and statistics is more than just a clever remark.

 

Owning a gun shoould be a heavy responsibility. Loading it an d firing it, or threatening to fire it, should be an even greater responsibility. If this responsibility is put front and center, a lot of other issues would take their proper place.

 

Ken, I bow to your superior mathematical knowledge yet also have the impression that statistics that are derived from measurements of physiological responses (i.e., alcohol consumption)are more valuable than attempted measurements of psychological reactions (will one shoot or not shoot a gun.) Your thoughts?

[mycroft]

One of the issues I have is that (as opposed to "protected by <alarm company>"), "This house protected by Smith & Wesson" == "we have expensive fenceable stuff here, wait until we leave to break in". Yes, there should be trigger locks and gun safes, but a) how many do, and b) how "protected" are you if you have to get into your safe, pull out your weapon, crack the trigger lock, load it, and then deal with the break in? (which leads to more in the above category, of course).

 

But then again, the first thing I thought when I heard of Foursquare is "follow me to find out when I'm not home so you can steal all the stuff you see on my Facebook feed". So maybe I'm a little paranoid.

[kenberg]

Ken, I bow to your superior mathematical knowledge yet also have the impression that statistics that are derived from measurements of physiological responses (i.e., alcohol consumption)are more valuable than attempted measurements of psychological reactions (will one shoot or not shoot a gun.) Your thoughts?

 

I am not sure exactly what you mean, "statistics that are derived from measurements of physiological responses (i.e., alcohol consumption" does not really bring up a clear picture in my mind, but probably I agree. You mean it is probably easier to tell if a person is drunk than it is to tell if he will shoot someone? Yes, my guess is that this is so. Now whether it is easier to tell if he will get drunk tomorrow or if he will shoot someone tomorrow, maybe I am less sure.

 

Mostly I am not sure where you are going with this. I suspect I have not answered the question.

[Winstonm]

I am not sure exactly what you mean, "statistics that are derived from measurements of physiological responses (i.e., alcohol consumption" does not really bring up a clear picture in my mind, but probably I agree. You mean it is probably easier to tell if a person is drunk than it is to tell if he will shoot someone? Yes, my guess is that this is so. Now whether it is easier to tell if he will get drunk tomorrow or if he will shoot someone tomorrow, maybe I am less sure.

 

Mostly I am not sure where you are going with this. I suspect I have not answered the question.

 

I probably formed the question poorly. Basically, what I am asserting is that drunk driving/death statistics should be regarded as more of a valid cause and effect than gun/murder statistics as the latter can never show if the gun prompted the murder or if the murderer simply would have chosen another weapon. With alcohol, diminished driving capacity can be demonstrated in tests.

[blackshoe]

Owning a gun shoould be a heavy responsibility. Loading it and firing it, or threatening to fire it, should be an even greater responsibility. If this responsibility is put front and center, a lot of other issues would take their proper place.

I have absolutely no quarrel with this.

[helene_t]

Basically, what I am asserting is that drunk driving/death statistics should be regarded as more of a valid cause and effect than gun/murder statistics as the latter can never show if the gun prompted the murder or if the murderer simply would have chosen another weapon. With alcohol, diminished driving capacity can be demonstrated in tests.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png

(source:xkcd.com)

The question is how plausible it is that the student's change in attitude was caused by the course, as opposed to how plausible it is that some third factor caused the student to take the course and also caused the change in attitude. (And of course, there is the issue of robustness of the statistics. but let's say for the case of the argument that we observed a million students who took the course, and a million who didn't, and we observed a difference in attitude change rates between the two groups).

 

I suppose it could be argued that drunk drivers are just irresponsible people and that they would have caused accidents anyway even if we somehow prevented them from driving. (lol I mean drinking of course!)

Edited May 23, 2013 by helene_t