Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

Your study is better than the one I found. So the chances of a child dying from a accidental gunshot wound is about 1 in 624,000.

624,000 X 503 = 313,900,000 = Population of the United States.

Uh. Are you under the assumption that every single person in the United States is a child?

What other mistakes are you making?

[PhaelixWW]

Is that supposed to be like some sort of compelling rebuttal? Or just spam?

Seems like a case of GIGO.

[GhostShaman]

Because they are not... Unlike, you know, guns.

Not true. Which is more accurate at killing within 21 feet? By the time you unholster or even aim at that distance a knife attacker could have already slit your throat.

Human beings are going to kill no matter what weapon they choose.

[PhaelixWW]

624,000 X 503 = 313,900,000 = Population of the United States.

Uh. Are you under the assumption that every single person in the United States is a child?

Ages 1-17 make up roughly a quarter of the US population, so 1 in 156k.

[petej0]

This country was founded on the right of white landowners to supposedly do those things. Let's not get too dramatic, ok?

Also, The Civil War answered the question of whether "discharging the government" is a viable option through armed conflict.

It isn't.

It greatly depends on the reason for a revolution. Why? Because this country is a lot more mixed then in the past. We have conservatives living in blue states and liberals living in red states. We have christians living amongst jewish, muslim, athiest etc..Your neighbor could very well be against the very thing you are fighting for.

[Rukentuts]

Your neighbor could very well be against the very thing you are fighting for.

That happened in the Civil War. The same exact thing.

[TZucchini]

I said that it was comparing adolescents to pre-adolescents. Are you saying that firearm injury rates among 13-17 is higher than 1-12? Specifically at home and ignoring gang activity, since we're talking about stats related to home storage. Did you have data to back that up?

Data? Not really. The study states "this is of concern because most youth firearm injuries happen to adolescents." Since it's a study about firearm storage in homes, I would assume that's what they're referencing.

Uh, false. Re-read, please. It stated 22% loaded, 32% unsecured, and 8% loaded and unsecured. That 8% is the cross-section of the 22% and 32%, so in total, that accounts for only 46%. That means that 54% of the houses had a secured and unloaded firearm.

Yeah I'm wrong here. You're right.

Furthermore, I'm not sure entirely how worried we're supposed to be about a secured, loaded firearm, since it's secured.

Yeah, I'd agree with that.

And an unsecured but unloaded firearm is only dangerous if there's unsecured ammunition in the vicinity, so that's a questionable 24%. Honestly, the ones you should be worried about are the 8%.

I'm definitely concerned about the 24%. The ammo could be stored in the same drawer as the firearm, it could be stored across the house. We don't know, and that concerns me.

I didn't say it was meaningless, just that it wasn't terribly meaningful. Not the same thing at all.

A single study doesn't prove anything, anyway. It's useful. We obviously need more research.

You don't cover all aspects at once. You gradually allow more hands-on teaching at successive ages. It feels like you're being a bit disingenous here.

We'll just have to disagree here. I'm of the opinion that 2-year-old children shouldn't be taught firearm safety.

- - - Updated - - -

Ages 1-17 make up roughly a quarter of the US population, so 1 in 156k.

I feel like that number is a bit disingenuous. We should be looking at households. More specifically, households that have children and firearms under the same roof.

[NYC17]

It greatly depends on the reason for a revolution. Why? Because this country is a lot more mixed then in the past. We have conservatives living in blue states and liberals living in red states. We have christians living amongst jewish, muslim, athiest etc..Your neighbor could very well be against the very thing you are fighting for.

None of that changes the basic equation, and it's not particularly correct, but whatever. There's one thing this country has that is the ultimate check against "tyranny". It's an all-volunteer military.

[Rooflesstoofless]

624,000 X 503 = 313,900,000 = Population of the United States.

Uh. Are you under the assumption that every single person in the United States is a child?

No assumptions on my part. Just bad math.

Redone for ages 18 and under it comes out to 1 in 150,000.

What other mistakes are you making?

Waiting for a valid solution that doesn't shit all over the rights of law abiding citizens.

- - - Updated - - -

None of that changes the basic equation, and it's not particularly correct, but whatever. There's one thing this country has that is the ultimate check against "tyranny". It's an all-volunteer military.

How is the all volunteer military the ultimate check against tyranny?

[NYC17]

How is the all volunteer military the ultimate check against tyranny?

In a country where the power lies with the people, and those people voluntarily choose to uphold the Constitution, I would think that's pretty self explanatory.

[Wildtree]

Here's how you break into a house:

Step 1: Pick up a rock.

Step 2: Throw it at a window

Step 3: Enter the house.

Honestly. Trying to compare stealing a car to breaking into a house is a monumental failure on your part.

Can I fix this, for at least 50% of all homes?

Here's how you break into a house:

Step 1: Pick up a rock. Just in case...

Step 2: Walk up to the door, and tun the doorknob

Step 3: Enter the house.

In case step 2 returns a negative result... (for which the chances are lower than just getting in with no resistance)

Step 4: Walk around the house, check the backdoor or basement door. Either one may be open, or check any main floor window, one of those may be unlocked..

Step 5: use that damn rock you've picked up a few minutes ago..

Step 6: enter the house

We are talking about the USA here...
In most suburban neighborhoods most of the people don't lock their doors. They are always open, and everyone can just walk in...
This may be different within bigger cities, and in apartment buildings. But apparently the topic was the typical single family home.. And for those there are more homes simply not locked at all, than there are locked.

[PhaelixWW]

Data? Not really. The study states "this is of concern because most youth firearm injuries happen to adolescents." Since it's a study about firearm storage in homes, I would assume that's what they're referencing.

Yeah, that's an assumption. I have a feeling that they're not basing that on hard data, merely extrapolation and supposition. Most age-based reports tend to lump 15-19 together as a group, which muddies the waters, since about half of those are of legal age to be considered an adult and thus potentially buy their own firearm. It's also why I wished there was data that was able to exclude gang activity.

I'm definitely concerned about the 24%. The ammo could be stored in the same drawer as the firearm, it could be stored across the house. We don't know, and that concerns me.

That's why I said questionable. My dad, for example, had a revolver in his closet in my home, growing up. He kept no ammo for it in the house, however. I didn't even realize he had it until after I was 18. It was merely something he had from his time in the Air Force. I can conceive of many such situations, but we have no idea how many of those are similar to mine or cases where the ammo was right next to the gun. I would challenge you, however, to find some cases where a child deliberately put ammunition into a firearm before accidentally shooting someone. You're right to think that that's more of an issue with older kids, though.

A single study doesn't prove anything, anyway. It's useful. We obviously need more research.

I'm generally down for more research. I hate incomplete and/or inconclusive data.

We'll just have to disagree here. I'm of the opinion that 2-year-old children shouldn't be taught firearm safety.

As long as you understand that "firearm safety" as taught to a 2-year-old is limited to "don't touch this!" and doesn't include "here's how to fire the gun".

[Roxinius]

Because this home "defense" thing is a crock of shit.

its a crock of shit till it happens to you honestly i hope if someone in an act of desperation breaks into your house they don't kill you oh wait in your fucked up world view crime doesn't happen right

[petej0]

That happened in the Civil War. The same exact thing.

Not to the extent it would be now.

[Revolutions]

Just a footnote, the Republicans were still the liberal party at that time. They have nothing in common except namesake with the present-day incarnation.

Not in today's sense of the word. They were still very conservative.

[Rooflesstoofless]

In a country where the power lies with the people, and those people voluntarily choose to uphold the Constitution, I would think that's pretty self explanatory.

A federalized military was never intended to be the ultimate check against tyranny, especially when Congress has delegated ultimate power of declaration of war to a single individual (back in Oct 2002) which goes against the War Powers Act. The presidents can currently be as tyrannical as they want and have the military at their disposal to accomplish that task, even if their actions and following of orders is NOT constitutional; they are simply protected by the tyrant.

[NYC17]

A federalized military was never intended to be the ultimate check against tyranny, especially when Congress has delegated ultimate power of declaration of war to a single individual (back in Oct 2002) which goes against the War Powers Act. The presidents can currently be as tyrannical as they want and have the military at their disposal to accomplish that task, even if their actions and following of orders is NOT constitutional; they are simply protected by the tyrant.

The intent really doesn't matter. The military may be federalized, but the fact that it is comprised of fellow citizens who have volunteered to serve is key.

I can see you're hung up on the word "ultimate". I was being somewhat facetious as there is no ultimate check. Which is why the idea that the 2nd Amendment is what keeps the government in check is laughable. If we're at the point in which our own voluntarily militarized citizens are willing to go to war with us with the resources the government has, the 2nd Amendment will not be of much help.

[Tinykong]

There is no "check" against tyranny anymore. The government can hold off tens of thousands of armed fighters with a handful of personnel, maybe even hundreds of thousands.

[Rooflesstoofless]

The intent really doesn't matter. The military may be federalized, but the fact that it is comprised of fellow citizens who have volunteered to serve is key.

I can see you're hung up on the word "ultimate". I was being somewhat facetious as there is no ultimate check. Which is why the idea that the 2nd Amendment is what keeps the government in check is laughable. If we're at the point in which our own voluntarily militarized citizens are willing to go to war with us with the resources the government has, the 2nd Amendment will not be of much help.

You were the one using the language and when I questioned it you said it was self explanatory.

I agree that 2nd Amendment isn't keeping the government in check but then again neither are any of our other rights as citizens. That is indicative of a far wider problem if the best course of action is to limit a right because it isn't working as intended with a government that has been shown to willfully disregard laws in the name of profiteering. To me, that is far, far scarier than an armed citizenship.

[Kellhound]

Sure. The AAP did a pretty good study recently. They found that between 1997 and 2009, hospitalizations from gunshot wounds increased from 4,270 to 7,730, and in-hospital deaths from 317 to 503.

They also found:






Right. And adolescents are more likely to be on the receiving end of firearm injuries. That's the point.



All 392 houses contained firearms and children. All 392 houses had either an unsecured firearm, a loaded firearm, or an unsecured and loaded firearm.

That's a large sample size. It's a scientific study, and you don't get to handwave it with one sentence.



Telling a 2-year-old child not to touch a firearm? Really? Is that supposed to work?

Sorry. But if you're giving firearm safety lessons to a 2-year-old, you're...not smart...in my opinion....

So, guns in the home are about as dangerous as pools to America's youth.

http://www.poolsafely.gov/drowning-deaths-injuries/