"it's waaaay too late for gun control in america" - steve earle

and I agree with him. I wish I wasn't so cynical about it.

Americans are crazy about guns. Literally crazy, and the best one can hope is to stay out of the way of the crazy.

crazy. I think a campaign like used for tobacco can work long-term.

In any event, I'm with you on avoiding the crazy.

If it's safely stored, it's not accessible.

the occasional massacre and dying kids are just something we have to put up with

Thank goodness cities that have banned guns like Chicago, New York and DC are safe havens from gun violence. I don’t care if it costs us the White House and both houses of Congress, we must push to ban guns.

Or maybe not.


Macoy

Last edited Fri Oct 19, 2012, 04:51 PM - Edit history (1)

they got what they wanted - GUNS ARE EVERYWHERE. So BE HAPPY!!!!!!!!!!!!

if bans are to be our solution to every public health issue.

"He and the rest of the AAP's Council on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention Executive Committee found that as of 2009, between 11 and 12 of every 100,000 older teens were being killed every year by gunshots. About two-thirds of those were homicides, with suicides and accidental deaths accounting for the rest."

Interesting. I wasn't able to find the key to the study that would cite how they defined 'child' (Some similar past surveys had included people up to the age of 24) and these numbers don't appear to control for teens/children that obtained a gun outside the home.

What is the death rate that is attributable only to firearms stored unsecured inside the home?

Accidental deaths of this nature are absurdly low, even including adults. It's not even a rounding error. The murder/suicide rate is much higher though, and could use some comparable perspective.

Are they correct in labeling a kid a kid?
Geez!

that is why the age is important. An 18 year old gang banger getting shot is not grounds for a gun ban.

5 year olds too.

but i know, i know, from your comfortable perch, your message is DON'T DO ANYTHING.

on a range of issues, be they civil rights, etc., don't do anything.

just don't do anything.

taking away my guns does not disarm them.

I do enjoy target shooting with my family - that is why there are 4 "assault weapons" in my gun safe. I am not willing to give them up because some city can't fix their violent criminal problem.

but it's okay if you want to lie about the article.

everyone will just realize that you don't think you can win the argument based on telling the truth.

oh well.

unless you're saying you got them illegally --did you?

so either you're lying about the law or your guns were acquired illegally.

and though you're wrong, in either case, it's okay, the cost is just the lives of children in inner cities and obviously you can't be bothered to understand what you're talking about if the only benefit is kids in rough circumstances having a better chance of making it to their 18th birthdays.

but all the better to know where you stand and how little foundation you have for standing there.

or some irresponsible parent because I own guns?

The solution to gun violence is simple:

1. Legalize drugs and end the war on drugs. That would remove the finacial incentive that gets so many street corner businessmen killed.

2. Empty the prisons of the those convicted of victimless non-violent drug offenses. It will save billions that can be spent on education and other social services that these kids really need.

3. Focus the justice system like a laser on violence crime. You use a gun while committing a crime and go to prison for a very long time.

Instead of pissing into the wind over gun control laws, that is what I would do. What do you think?

but you don't seem to think that you can win this argument without lying about the law or proposal in question.

as for the other ideas, concede your falsehood and we'll move on.

Yawn.

...because the death of a few children isn't so bad. It's so 'low' (according to you).

Really...that's your position? Same old ridiculous arguments from the gun clutching crowd.

I asked for specifics. They were not discoverable within the article.

Accidental deaths related to firearms, including children AND adults are so low, they can hardly be considered a public safety issue.

Suicides and murders on the other hand, a bigger deal. Much bigger.

I believe that is the same number as in the Pediatrics article, "Firearm-Related Injuries Affecting the Pediatric Population", here:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/10/15/peds.2012-2481.full.pdf+html

Basic gun safety should be taught in public schools, much like what used to be called "Health and Safety" when I was growing up - That's sex education.

An unsecured firearm is dangerous anywhere, especially when it is loaded; therefore guns should be treated as potential environmental hazards much as rattlesnakes and power tools are.

Everyone who finishes high school should have been taught the importance of securing weapons, how to safely handle them in case they encounter one in a social situation, and how to safely unload the most common types of pistols, rifles, and shotguns. This could be taught in a single one-hour session that would not involve the presence of any actual weapons. It could even be done by a well-produced video.

Hell it is just common sense to not leave a the gun laying around where a kid can get a hold of it. But then how can the gunner shoot the bad guys if he/she has to take the time to deal with safety around kid issues?

You obviously have some very negative stereotypes about people who own guns.

You don't need to be taught that guns are dangerous.
Reading the shit posted on DU has given me a real negetive opinion of gun owners.
As a group they are a bunch of self centered heartless .............!

Too many kids grow up without either that or sufficient "common sense" to know to keep weapons secured.

I knew that when I was 3 or 4. Didn't need it taught to me, it was obvious!

...fully connected to each other.

... knows that their brains and their hands are not fully connected much of the time.

Not opinions.

I suspect it will be the usual, you have to have someone steeped in guns, who knows the difference between a mag and clip, who knows when you can shoot an unarmed teenager under "stand your ground laws," etc.

More stereotyping. How predictable.

> I want teachers who teach FACTS and TRUTH.

You mean like the fact that in countries with rigid gun control there are nearly zero gun deaths?

Oh, wait, that isn't "proven" according to the Delicate Flowers. It's just a coincidence.

....Mexico & Jamaica.....

wait, not that...

equipment as much as the ethos.

Last edited Sat Oct 20, 2012, 11:41 AM - Edit history (1)

The NRA Talking Lies, like "What about the Swiss???", pop up so frequently here on DU that I think the Gungeon must be be used by Red State or something to relay messages. It's like playing Wack-a-Mole, because the NRA lies keep being parroted no matter how many times one rebuts them.

you said so here on DU yourself and not long ago, you said you didn't care about another law because it didn't have anything to do with you.

i have a car, i'd like to keep it, but i am not going to come out against all vehicle laws to encourage safety just because i like my car.

In public safety, or whatever they are supposed to do.

Having to sacrifice everything for the group. While I am quite willing to sacrifice a number of things to the group, in exchange for living in the US, one of the things I am not willing to sacrifice is the RKBA. And I’m not alone in this.

“People not getting hurt” is the not the only thing that matters in this country. Despite all your fantasies to the contrary, freedom is sometimes more important than safety.

There is absolutely no reason that those that live in small towns, villages, or on farms or ranches, where the only law enforcement is the county sheriff, with a response time of 30 minutes to one hour, should have the sacrifice the ability to defend themselves and their family, on the grounds that it MIGHT prevent someone in a large urban area from getting hurt.

You call that whatever you want, that is my opinion and I stand by it.

Since they're only in kindergarten, they didn't go over any actual gun safety (how to handle, clean, unload, etc...). They just told the children if they see an "unsecured" gun, don't touch it and go tell an adult. For someone at that age, it seems like pretty good advice.

I recall in 8th grade, we did a boat safety class, I don't see why they couldn't do a basic gun safety class at that age either.

If you have children in your home, and you don't lock up your firearms in some way, you are just absolutely asking for trouble. Children WILL find them, and they WILL play with them, or, worse, they will use them for violence on themselves or other people.

It is completely irresponsible to have firearms within the reach of children.

If you feel you absolutely must have quick access to firearms in your home, there are safes which provide quick access and still securely lock up the gun.

Unfortunately, I don't think laws can do much about this.

Most people who don't secure their guns think "it will never happen to me".

And when it does happen to them, no punishment can be worse than losing your child.

I suppose in cases where the negligence leads to the death of someone else then punishments might serve justice and as a deterrent, but I suspect already people are open to civil cases in that case.

I don't have any need to have them out except when I am cleaning or inspecting or using them, and I don't want to risk having them stolen.

The Delicate Flowers (Tom Tomorrow's apt name for gun-nuts) would all starve.

They're too scared to leave the house without a gun.

don't try to gloss over how powerless your side really is - it just makes you look pathetic.

Another fool who thinks money=right.

Just because the gun lobby & NRA spend millions more than the sane Liberal side, doesn't mean that you Delicate Flowers are correct.

have you ever wondered why none of them are gun control organizations?

> have you ever wondered why none of them are gun control organizations?

Prove it, as you gun-fanatics say.

PETA = 2 million members $34 mil budget.

EMILY's List = 600,000 members

NOW = 500,000 members

Your laundry list proves nothing. You claimed:

> There are many powerful left leaning organizations with money and political clout
> have you ever wondered why none of them are gun control organizations?

You're going to have to list every single left-leaning organization there is, and then you'll have to prove that "powerful" is directly related to number of members (not, for example, to the clout of individual members who might be in Congress), and then you'll have to prove some connection.

GET GOING! You just LOVE to make baseless claims, and you can't prove a single one of them.

because they consistently get their asses handed to them.

The question is why. You say that the NRA is winning only because they spend a lot of money. Does that mean the Brady bunch is failing because they have no money to spend? Or is it because no one cares?

We know that liberal organizations can raise millions of dollars and mobilize hundreds of thousands of voters. We know that no gun control group can do it. So why?

> But we know that no gun control organization has any real political clout

More assertions from you. I know your Precious is a religious artifact, but try to use sources next time. As Gungeneers all over DU are so fond of saying, PROVE IT!

What is the purpose of these gun control groups if not to get legislation passed? Why are they failing in such a spectacular way?

It is easy to prove - lets look at all the major gun control victories in the past years. That's right - there are none.

They simply don't care.

Their ability to hump their guns is paramount.

Bravo

according to some.

what additional fetters do you think would solve this problem?

I don't understand how banning scary looking guns is supposed to reduce crime.

We have some of the laxest gun laws in the country. Gun ownership is high. Fire arm assaults are low.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

KIDS COUNT Overall Rank (Number) – 2012:

http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=7288

I'm unfamiliar with KIDS COUNT or The Annie E. Casey Foundation, other than it came up a lot in my Google search for state rankings.

It lists NH (#1), MA(#2), VT (#3), NJ (#4), and MN (#5).

Interesting that, of the top 4, 2 states have very strict gun control laws (MA & NJ) and 2 have relatively lax gun control laws (NH & VT). I'm not familiar with MN gun control laws.