DescentBB

Isaac wrote:1) >11k gun-related murders + # of gun accidents that weren't self-inflicted + # of gun accidents involving children
[...]
Explain the hundred million gun owners that don't shoot themselves every year.

I don't understand what you want me to explain, especially since the numbers for point (1) don't include gun owners who shoot themselves.

Isaac wrote:2) >34k gun-related deaths
[...]
A gun can only kill you if you get shot with it, otherwise it takes none of your life at all.

Right, and?

Isaac wrote:3) >11k gun-related murders
[...]
Cigarette companies aren't evil?

People want to smoke, and cigarette companies are fulfilling that demand. Where they have crossed the line in my opinion is in some of their historical practices to recruit new customers. Fortunately, we have much better laws restricting that these days.

Isaac wrote:So what you're saying is, if you had the choice between magically removing all cigarettes or guns, you'd pick guns, even though you'd be saving hundreds of thousands of more lives removing cigarettes...

I wouldn't choose to do either. People have the right to smoke, and people have the right to own guns, and so I would never forcefully take those from everyone.

I wouldn't choose to do either. People have the right to smoke, and people have the right to own guns, and so I would never forcefully take those from everyone.

I was debating with you as if you were anti-gun. If you're ok with me owning any gun I want, then we have no problem.

nah, not out of control in Texas.......just try and explain that to this kid's family:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10 ... s-gun?lite

Lets try a "Gasp" new idea. How about we have NRA instructors come into k-12 schools and teach gun safety. I know, I used the 3 letters of the alphabet that makes certain people cringe and go into the vapors but the NRA is the premiere firearm safety and training organisation. So we could have these classes just like they have sex ed classes and proper installation of condom classes. Hey just a thought.

callmeslick wrote:nah, not out of control in Texas.......just try and explain that to this kid's family:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10 ... s-gun?lite

I wonder how many stories I can find of parents being distraught over their child being killed by a drunk drive. Slick, do you really think stupidity is limited to gun owners?

callmeslick wrote:nah, not out of control in Texas.......just try and explain that to this kid's family:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10 ... s-gun?lite

It's funny how the news only covers those that misuse guns. Just remember, for every one gun accident you read, there are thousands of gun owners that practice gun safety in that same city.

frankly, Issac, my take on it is(and always has been) this: the penalties around PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY of gun owners are what should be addressed. Sure, this girl may be looking at a couple years in the can, but frankly, I'd like to see 10-20 year terms for anyone who fails to secure their weapon(s). That, more than any one change, would likely prevent a lot of the violent accidents and incidents that plague the US.

Yea, same for anyone else that causes a death by accident…20 years in the slammer.

Plague...lol

Except where you spell my name wrong, I agree! Since gun safety is my religion I have no problem with harsh punishments to those that go against it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-576 ... ide-crash/

20 years in the slammer!!!

No wait…..

“"It's just an unfortunate tragedy," Martos said.”

Spidey wrote:Yea, same for anyone else that causes a death by accident…20 years in the slammer.

Plague...lol

please, find some sense of equivalence here.

Isaac wrote:Except where you spell my name wrong, I agree! Since gun safety is my religion I have no problem with harsh punishments to those that go against it.

apologies, Isaac......clumsy old fingers at work!

So if someone leaves a steak knife or butcher knife unattended and little Johnny grabs it, runs, trips and guts himself the person who left it out should do 20 years also?

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/parental/dishwasher.asp

once again, equivalence. We don't have a problem with large numbers of knife accidents and incidents. And, leaving a knife unattended, for example, is EXTREMELY unlikely to result in the accidental death of anyone. Likewise, cars being taken for joyrides. A gun can be picked up, go off, and someone's kid or some innocent bystander is freaking dead. Have a bit of common sense, please.

I suggest you look at the FBI statistics. For 2011 there was a total of 12,664 murders. Of those 8,583 were by all firearms. Knives accounted for 1,694. Not exactly a insignificant amount

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... a-table-11

Hahah, those are just knife homicides. The same goes for guns. Those numbers do not include accidents or suicides. Fatal gun accidents are only around 900 a year, for example. Fatal knife accidents would probably be around 200 (huge assumption alert).

I suspect your knife guess is off by a factor of 10(to the high side). Knife fatalities(intentional or otherwise) take some doing, in terms of placement.

once again, though, Isaac is the outlier here, realizing that what I said was the sensible approach. It's both amusing and disgusting that so many would throw up goofy analogies and outright smokescreens as we have daily examples of gun tragedies that a heightened level of personal responsibility(enforced by law) would eliminate.

Stop guessing and find hard data.

callmeslick wrote:once again, equivalence. We don't have a problem with large numbers of knife accidents and incidents. And, leaving a knife unattended, for example, is EXTREMELY unlikely to result in the accidental death of anyone. Likewise, cars being taken for joyrides. A gun can be picked up, go off, and someone's kid or some innocent bystander is freaking dead. Have a bit of common sense, please.

You need a better reason to single guns out, or rethink your desire to hold them out as more of a threat for accidental death than other items or conditions.

More children die from accidental drowning than guns for example. So using your 'common sense' you should include drowning as well.

Why would there be a need for an additional penalty for negligence leading to the death of a child if the death included a particular instrument? If your goal is truly to prevent or reduce accidental deaths it shouldn't matter what the instrument of the death was, only that a death occurred that was the result of negligence. Increase the penalty for ALL negligent deaths.

You are advocating the 'hate-crime-for-accidents-including-guns'. The motive for that is not to reduce incidents of accidental child death because exempting other instruments is counter to the logic of prevention. If the penalty will help reduce incidents why limit your reduction to only one fraction of the incidents?!?

In your zeal you jumped the gun there slick. Premature detonation.

Or Premature Ejaculation

Well slick is talking about a situation where a child gets hold of your gun, not all gun accidents. If you let a kid get hold of your unlocked and loaded gun, ★■◆● you. You're the problem with this country and these killing sprees. 20 years in prison, at least.

Isaac wrote:Well slick is talking about a situation where a child gets hold of your gun, not all gun accidents. If you let a kid get hold of your unlocked and loaded gun, **** you. You're the problem with this country and these killing sprees. 20 years in prison, at least.

If you are the baby sitter who lets a child drown while you are napping or if you are the baby sitter who lets a child get your gun and shoot itself while you are napping you are equally guilty,liable and open to the same punishment in my view.

If you are concerned with accidental deaths you don't exempt all forms of negligence that don't involve guns from the penalty designed to reduce negligent acts. That would be stupid.

As to negligently allowing someone to use your weapon to shoot others...be it a mass shooting or a single victim...be it accidental shooting or premeditated murder...we should have the same level of penalty.

I think where slicks line of reasoning is appropriate is if I don't lock up my steak knives and the punk down the street breaks in and takes a knife and stabs someone purposefully or accidentally I shouldn't be liable or punished.

But that really begs a longer view and presents a flaw in the logic doesn't it? If steak knife burglaries are increasingly tied to murders at some point, using slicks reasoning, we will have to lock up our steak knives or become liable and accomplices to the murder...then lock up the golf clubs....then lock up the larger stones in our landscaping...

So regulations for instruments are not solutions. Not that there should be none, but that there shouldn't be anyone in Congress who thinks they have addressed the source of the problem by signing on to a law regulating instruments. And if your Congressperson is one who touts instrument regulation as his solution to murderous activity you need to get a new Congressperson because either they are really stupid or they are counting you as being really stupid..

Will Robinson, I agree with basically everything you've said, so this is really not a debate.