Strong Reason to Retain the Second Amendment

[Big Don]

In quite a few of the recent mass shootings the guns have been stolen from a family member or neighbor who kept them unsecured. Safe storage/biometrics could make a difference there. The total tally of gun deaths per year is about 30,000 so addressing some of the 70-some deaths 700-some accidental shootings by kids per year isn't entirely negligible.

Anxiously awaiting your promise to buy at least one bio-metrically locked gun safe for someone who cannot afford it.

 

[arnisador]

Anxiously awaiting your promise to buy at least one bio-metrically locked gun safe for someone who cannot afford it.

How many permits have you paid for for people who want to stage a peaceable assembly but can't afford it?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

In quite a few of the recent mass shootings the guns have been stolen from a family member or neighbor who kept them unsecured.

Like at Newtown where while law enforcement is still not sure how he got the guns, the "Control" folks are certain it was the fault of his dead mom for failing to secure them....though they can never ever give details when pressed.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

How many permits have you paid for for people who want to stage a peaceable assembly but can't afford it?

Why do I need a permit to express a Constitutional Right?

 

[DennisBreene]

In quite a few of the recent mass shootings the guns have been stolen from a family member or neighbor who kept them unsecured. Safe storage/biometrics could make a difference there. The total tally of gun deaths per year is about 30,000 so addressing some of the 70-some deaths 700-some accidental shootings by kids per year isn't entirely negligible.

While I agree with the sentiment you express, I'm still stumped by the problem that the guns have to be locked in the biometric safe for it to be effective. Does anyone have statistics as to how many perpetrators of gun violence, or victims of accidental shootings gained access to a locked safe vs. access to an unsecured safe or weapon? If we don't have that answer (and I promise to do my homework and not just leave the question open) how can we say that the proposed solution will be effective.

 

[Drasken]

and yet never will there be an answer if 776 out of 73,400,000 is a significant number.

Of course not. And it isn't a signifigant number, and never SHOULD be considered a signifigant number.
For example, there IS around a 1% complication rate in circumcision. About 1 in 500,000 infant circumcisions result in death. Why aren't we having legislation making it illegal? The numbers aren't significant. And the benifits are thought to outweigh the risks. Same with vaccinations.
A friend posted some activist thing about this topic on her Facebook page and it seemed like a good comparisson to illustrate the point.

Gun ownership benifits the safety of a family when the parents aren't negligent idiots. But these SMALL numbers of children injured by firearms ( which wouldn't happen without parental negligence ) are fueling an argument for more trampling on the rights of other citizens.
Seems kind of stupid to me. Start locking these negligent parents up. Maybe it'll force other negligent parents to grow up and raise their kids. And to use their heads, if nothing else than self preservation.
But you do NOT punish the rest of the populace for a few acts of stupidity and negligence.
That'd be like a whole class being put in detention for 2 of them getting into a fight.... Actually with these numbers it'd be like a whole school of kids in detention for 2 or 3 getting into a fight.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

 

[arnisador]

I don't know the statistics. The OR mall and NM family shooters took unsecured guns from a neighbor's house and their own, resp. The CT shooter's mother had a safe that was found open and the reports showed no sign of forced entry into it. Getting a weapon in this way seems to be a recurring theme, but i don't know the numbers.

 

[DennisBreene]

As promised. http//abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=4507452&page=1#.UWjsFEAo73hised. http://publichealthlawresearch.org/public-health-topics/injury-gu.

 

[arnisador]

Why aren't we having legislation making it illegal?

It's been tried--e.g., San Francisco. If this is your issue, go for it.

Gun ownership benifits the safety of a family

False. Gun ownership significantly increases the risk of injury or death rather than lowering it. This is incontrovertible.

But you do NOT punish the rest of the populace for a few acts of stupidity and negligence.

It's a law, not a punishment. The difference matters...in a civilized society.

 

[DennisBreene]

and: http://www.saf.org/journal/14/lock,stockandbarrel.pdf

 

[arnisador]

I'm with Learned Hand.

Anyone double-check my arithmetic yet? What am I missing about that calculation?

 

[Drasken]

It's been tried--e.g., San Francisco. If this is your issue, go for it.



False. Gun ownership significantly increases the risk of injury or death rather than lowering it. This is incontrovertible.



It's a law, not a punishment. The difference matters...in a civilized society.

It's a stupid law taking the rights of a populace away because of the mistakes of a statistically insignificant number of idiots. Sorry that you don't understand why someone could take issue with that, but that is your shortcoming not mine.

I don't deny that these kids are injured. But I also think that the solution is a more strict penalty on the parents that are found to have acted negligently and thus contributed to the injury. Not to force more regulations.

Also, having a gun? It increases risk that anyone coming into my home uninvited... wishing to harm my family or take my hard earned money or property will suffer injury or death. It does not increase risk to my wife or myself. The gun remains unloaded with a loaded magazine next to it in a secured case. Easily accessable should it be needed. Anyone coming in my home will be armed, or not, regardless of my possession of a gun. I fail to see your logic on how me having a gun, is more dangerous for me in the least.

 

[arnisador]

Also, having a gun? It increases risk that anyone coming into my home uninvited... wishing to harm my family or take my hard earned money or property will suffer injury or death. It does not increase risk to my wife or myself. The gun remains unloaded with a loaded magazine next to it in a secured case. Easily accessable should it be needed. Anyone coming in my home will be armed, or not, regardless of my possession of a gun. I fail to see your logic on how me having a gun, is more dangerous for me in the least.

Statistically speaking, having a gun in the home is much, much more likely to cause an unwanted injury than to be used in self-defense. This isn't something about which reasonable people can disagree. Your specific risk factors are a different matter.

 

[Drasken]

Statistically speaking, having a gun in the home is much, much more likely to cause an unwanted injury than to be used in self-defense. This isn't something about which reasonable people can disagree. Your specific risk factors are a different matter.

This statistic is also assuming that the owner is a moron that does not follow gun safety proceedure. Which is also stereotyping gun owners, since I have known many gun owners and all of them do follow safety precautions. None have been injured. 2 have used their gun in self defense.

Sorry but that statistic is overly generalized and comes from stupidity of people. Not from guns. The same kind of stupid people that shoot at each other, while wearing bullet proof vests, for fun. Or don't read safety instructions before operating machinery, or shoot themselves in the head with a nailgun to test the thickness of the skull and the penetrating power of the nailgun... They are the reason Darwin awards exist. And you can't fix stupid.

Everyone deals with their own concequences for their own actions. I believe awareness to be a good thing. Let's raise an awareness campaign, I'm all for that. I am NOT for a government making decisions FOR you, "for your own good"

 

[celtic_crippler]

Anxiously awaiting your promise to buy at least one bio-metrically locked gun safe for someone who cannot afford it.

But Don, didn’t you know Arni feels that we should pay for everything for those who can’t pay themselves regardless of personal responsibility? Not Arni specifically of course, because it’s much more fair to take and spend your money instead.

Why do I need a permit to express a Constitutional Right?

BOOYA! And there’s the million dollar question!

You know, a lot of this grief could be avoided if people simply knew and understood the difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEDGE.

You need permission (in the form of a permit… note it is the root word of permission) to exercise a PRIVILEDGE. A RIGHT requires no permission at all because of its nature.

The government has no RIGHTS! It has PRIVILEDGES granted it by the people.

Think they get it now, Bob?

…sigh, probably not.

Statistically speaking, having a gun in the home is much, much more likely to cause an unwanted injury than to be used in self-defense. This isn't something about which reasonable people can disagree. Your specific risk factors are a different matter.

Quote your source.

The NFPA’s most recent statistics show that an estimated 44,900 fires were started by children “playing with matches” resulting in 90 deaths, 890 injuries, and $210 million in property damage in 2010.

So, when can I expect you to start the crusade against the use of fire? Ban all matches, lighters, and flint!

Why stop there?

According to the CDC, drowning ranks 5[SUP]th[/SUP] among the leading causes of unintentional deaths in the US. Every day, two children aged 14 or younger die from drowning. And, for every child who dies from drowning, another 5 receive emergency care for nonfatal submersion injuries.

You ready to start a crusade against water; or just bathtubs, sinks, and toilets?

What those like you fail to realize, is that it is the responsibility of the parent to supervise their children. It’s not yours.

You want to cut down on injury and death in children altogether? Then hold their parents to be more responsible. Legislating to ban material items is ineffective. So, are you really looking for an effective measure in “saving the children” or do you have another agenda?


Citizen following gun control laws-> :snipe2: <- Soldier following orders

 

[Sukerkin]

False. Gun ownership significantly increases the risk of injury or death rather than lowering it. This is incontrovertible.

It is very much under debate as to whether that statement is a truism, Arni. I know you think the data is on your side but, I am afraid, the data itself is not universally accepted as having been convincingly collated or interpreted. After all, as you showed above, you can put mathematical spin on any data set.

If I was American, I would be solidly in the camp of those arguing that those that think as you do do not, at present, have the right to infringe their rights because of your fears. You can campaign to change that state of affairs of course tho' I suspect that with the 'audience' here you would be barking up the wrong tree.

I would appreciate it very much if contributors could not bend this thread into the same mangled shape as the 'other' one. My aim with opening this thread was to have it evidence based rather than flooded with politics/emotion/complete cobblers.

 

[arnisador]

This statistic is also assuming that the owner is a moron that does not follow gun safety proceedure. Which is also stereotyping gun owners

No...it's just the facts of what's happening. You might as well say we should ignore drunk driving because only idiots and jerks would do it, and it stereotypes drivers. The facts are the facts. It doesn't matter why it's true as long as it's true. And it isn't just stupidity--it also reflects people who misuse a gun in a moment of intense emotion, drunkenness, etc., for example, who wouldn't have had that opportunity sans firearm.

Sorry but that statistic is overly generalized[...]And you can't fix stupid.

It's not overly generalized--it's a simple report of the numbers. That's not a judgment. And since you can't fix stupid--as with drunk drivers--you need to do something else to address the issue.

Everyone deals with their own concequences for their own actions.

NO! Not with a gun. Overwhelmingly, someone else deals with consequences of someone's actions. Just like with drunk drivers. Would you make this statement to the relatives of someone killed in a mass shooting? That hey, the shooter is deal with their own concequences for their own actions? I doubt that'd be much comfort.

 

[arnisador]

It is very much under debate as to whether that statement is a truism, Arni. I know you think the data is on your side but, I am afraid, the data itself is not universally accepted as having been convincingly collated or interpreted.

What's the flaw in this type of study (one of so very many that buttress support for this fact):
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.abstract

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

Peer-reviewed science by scientists. That's my standard, which puts me at odds with the gun-enthusiasts here. Here's a standard citation on this:
http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/5/6/502.abstract

For most contemporary Americans, scientific studies indicate that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit. The evidence is overwhelming for the fact that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns. There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes. On the benefit side, there are fewer studies, and there is no credible evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in. Thus, groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics urge parents not to have guns in the home.

Note that when he says no credible evidence that does not mean the statement is false--just unproven. Data shows that when you have a gun and use it in defense the likelihood of you also being injured is greater, so for every scared-of would-be robber there is apparently also one who just fights back harder, or decides he needs to use rather than merely brandish his weapon.

After all, as you showed above, you can put mathematical spin on any data set.

Speaking of which, can you explain to me the 1 in a million figure you cited? I honestly am not seeing it.

 

[Sukerkin]

I really, really, can't see the flaw due to the bright turquoise text .

As to the other bit - I would not presume to do your maths for you. You already looked at the numbers - going over them again won't help me change your mind.

Assertions don't 'win' arguments and most of what we have had in the other thread are assertions and some fairly blatant refusal to use common sense. It seems to me that this is an exercise in the political classes use of 'feel good' over actually 'does good' to pursue a goal very different than the stated one.

I don't want the same here in this thread. I want people to use their intelligence to assess the figures for themselves rather than take their cues from politicians or sound-bite-ideology. I most surely do not wish contributors to get dislike of an argument mingled in with dislike for a persons political leanings.

For in the end, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other how things go on this debate in American political circles - I don't live there and wouldn't if you paid me (lovely geology, awful politics). What does matter to me is pragmatism and doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do rather than the most expedient or popular.

 

[billc]

Hmmm...those with insulin in their homes were more likely to die of causes of diabetes...hmmm...