At least 71 kids killed with guns in the US since Newtown

[Smallcock]

I think there is an underlying assumption that the original purpose for a gun (to kill) is inherently bad or evil. It isn't. It may be unfortunate that humans may sometimes have to kill others in self defense, however guns are sometimes far more effective than other weapons.

I think comparing accidental pool drowning and accidental gun deaths is valid. The side effect of gun ownership is that some people will unfortunately be killed accidentally.

 

[simon482]

I think there is an underlying assumption that the original purpose for a gun (to kill) is inherently bad or evil. It isn't. It may be unfortunate that humans may sometimes have to kill others in self defense, however guns are sometimes far more effective than other weapons.

I think comparing accidental pool drowning and accidental gun deaths is valid. The side effect of gun ownership is that some people will be killed by guns accidentally.

comparing something created for fun to something created to kill is not valid. one was meant to enhance life the other was made to end it.

 

[Smallcock]

comparing something created for fun to something created to kill is not valid. one was meant to enhance life the other was made to end it.

I disagree. Both were made to enhance life. Guns not only provide a method for self protection - in the past they made hunting for survival easier (better than a bow and arrow or spear). Today guns are still used for protection and for fun activities such as sport hunting and target practice.

Any tool that helps keeps the bad apples in check enhances the lives of the good apples.

 

[simon482]

I disagree. Both were made to enhance life. Guns not only provide a method for self protection - in the past they made hunting for survival easier (better than a bow and arrow or spear). Today guns are still used for protection and for fun activities such as sport hunting and target practice.

Any tool that helps keeps the bad apples in check enhances the lives of the good apples.

you can disagree all you like comparing a pool to a gun is ridiculous.

 

[shack]

I think comparing accidental pool drowning and accidental gun deaths is valid.

Good enough reason to start a separate thread on pool drownings instead of hijacking threads about the gun problem.

 

[Smallcock]

you can disagree all you like comparing a pool to a gun is ridiculous.

But I believe I've addressed why the comparison works. What's being compared or measured is safety, not the purpose of the gun or pool (although I've also shown that both are made to enhance life).

 

[fuji]

The number of deaths caused by lawfully owned guns is tiny. Much smaller than the rate of death in pretty much any sport, and quite a lot lower than the rate of death caused by cars. Cars kill more people than guns by every measure. More deaths per capita, more deaths per driver/gun-owner, more deaths per car/gun, more deaths in absolute terms. But sports too -- pretty much anything people do carries a measure of risk, and in most cases, more risk than gun ownership.

In every other aspect of life we accept a modicum of risk. We know that if we allow people to swim, ski, play hockey, or drive, that there will be a certain number of tragic events. We don't trot out the "if it saves only one life" argument to ban swimming pools or ski hills. We accept the risks.

With guns the arguments become emotional and stupid, people throw rationality to the wind, and come up with complete bullshit like "if it only saves one life" as if that is EVER a valid statement.

 

[shack]

The number of deaths caused by lawfully owned guns is tiny. Much smaller than the rate of death in pretty much any sport, and quite a lot lower than the rate of death caused by cars. Cars kill more people than guns by every measure. More deaths per capita, more deaths per driver/gun-owner, more deaths per car/gun, more deaths in absolute terms. But sports too -- pretty much anything people do carries a measure of risk, and in most cases, more risk than gun ownership.

Cars are a separate issue. Start another thread if you are so concerned.

The majority of the population in the U.S. is concerned about gun deaths and want some new legislation. That is the topic at hand, not cars.

 

[IM469]

The majority of the population in the U.S. is concerned about gun deaths and want some new legislation. That is the topic at hand, not cars.

It's a topic that they can't win so if they are not belittling the value of life by trying to suggest there is an acceptable number of child deaths, then they try the diversionary tactics.

 

[blackrock13]

Cars are a separate issue. Start another thread if you are so concerned.

The majority of the population in the U.S. is concerned about gun deaths and want some new legislation. That is the topic at hand, not cars.

Fuji will never get or want to get the point that the number of interaction between people and cars on a daily basis is far in excess of those with guns, so of course the number will be higher, but will hang onto the straw argument with every breath he has. I wonder if he pays more attention putting his undershirt on these days.

 

[shack]

Fuji will never get or want to get the point that the number of interaction between people and cars on a daily basis is far in excess of those with guns, so of course the number will be higher, but will hang onto the straw argument with every breath he has. I wonder if he pays more attention putting his undershirt on these days.

Well the proper approach would be to not be diverted with cars, drownings etc. Ignore those comments and stay on topic. Once we even attempt to try to show the fallacy of their comparisons they have accomplished their goal. We've been diverted.

Ignore all comparisons and as I said, if they are so concerned about cars, let them start a thread devoted to that.

 

[simon482]

But I believe I've addressed why the comparison works. What's being compared or measured is safety, not the purpose of the gun or pool (although I've also shown that both are made to enhance life).

well then if we compare goldfish to sharks we should ban all fish. stupid.

edit- actually goldfish to shark won't work since they are both fish. let's compare oreo cookies to ted bundy.

 

[shack]

let's compare oreo cookies to ted bundy.

Diabetes, obesity and heart disease are epidemics that kill way more than Ted Bundy.

 

[simon482]

Diabetes, obesity and heart disease are epidemics that kill way more than Ted Bundy.

link to prove oreos specifically killed anyone ? those things could be the fault of anything, people who have never eaten an oreo can have all of that.

 

[fun-guy]

The number of deaths caused by lawfully owned guns is tiny. Much smaller than the rate of death in pretty much any sport, and quite a lot lower than the rate of death caused by cars. Cars kill more people than guns by every measure. More deaths per capita, more deaths per driver/gun-owner, more deaths per car/gun, more deaths in absolute terms. But sports too -- pretty much anything people do carries a measure of risk, and in most cases, more risk than gun ownership.

In every other aspect of life we accept a modicum of risk. We know that if we allow people to swim, ski, play hockey, or drive, that there will be a certain number of tragic events. We don't trot out the "if it saves only one life" argument to ban swimming pools or ski hills. We accept the risks.

With guns the arguments become emotional and stupid, people throw rationality to the wind, and come up with complete bullshit like "if it only saves one life" as if that is EVER a valid statement.

Why do you keep coming up with such ridiculous and inane arguments on this gun control issue? You seem to put forth the argument because more people die each year from other things like swimming pool accidents, car accidents, or playing sports versus gun shootings, then we should focus on eliminating swimming pools, get all cars off the road and don't play anymore sports, but leave guns alone because it has less deaths. Can you just step back a little and see how silly you sound? Such childish reasoning that one expects from a grade 3 debating team.

No one is saying ban guns, drill that in your head, just like banning swimming pools, cars and sports is stupid, can't even believe we're talking about these comparisons.

What's wrong with working on all of them to reduce deaths. What's wrong with improving safety around swimming pools, improving laws on our roads and more protection and more rules in hockey to avoid head shots, etc..., and also introducing some more checks and balances on gun ownership? Certainly we can chew gum and walk at the same time, so let's work on all of them and not to the exclusion of guns.

 

[cunning linguist]

It's to put things in perspective because of how misguided and/or misleading the gun control argument already is. Shootings are rare, even in the US. 10-15K incidents is small when compared against a population of 30 million. The major cause for those shootings? Not the gun owners who acquire and use their firearms legally or responsibly, the few cases which are are reported and sensationalize out of proportion to skew perspectives. What to hear a diverionary tactic, how about, "lets address the issue by focusing on the people who haven't done anything wrong"?

 

[simon482]

Why do you keep coming up with such ridiculous and inane arguments on this gun control issue? You seem to put forth the argument because more people die each year from other things like swimming pool accidents, car accidents, or playing sports versus gun shootings, then we should focus on eliminating swimming pools, get all cars off the road and don't play anymore sports, but leave guns alone because it has less deaths. Can you just step back a little and see how silly you sound? Such childish reasoning that one expects from a grade 3 debating team.

No one is saying ban guns, drill that in your head, just like banning swimming pools, cars and sports is stupid, can't even believe we're talking about these comparisons.

What's wrong with working on all of them to reduce deaths. What's wrong with improving safety around swimming pools, improving laws on our roads and more protection and more rules in hockey to avoid head shots, etc..., and also introducing some more checks and balances on gun ownership? Certainly we can chew gum and walk at the same time, so let's work on all of them and not to the exclusion of guns.

it is the problem with extremists. someone says law or regulation and they hear ban and coming to take. you can't have a rational conversation with people that hear things and then create other things.

 

[shack]

It's to put things in perspective because of how misguided and/or misleading the gun control argument already is.

Regardless of your impression, 90% of Americans want more gun control. Their opinion is the reality of the situation.

 

[cunning linguist]

Regardless of your impression, 90% of Americans want more gun control. Their opinion is the reality of the situation.

90% of a cherry picked sample size were in favour of a vague concept of "expanded" background checks. Many of which probably aren't even aware of NICS or that a failed background check is what prevented the Newtown shooter from buying a gun from a gun store and instead caused him to steal (as in, commit a crime) his mother's guns.

 

[shack]

90% of a cherry picked sample size were in favour of a vague concept of "expanded" background checks.

Aside from the fact there were numerous polls, prove the "cherry picking".