ID - 2 year boy accidentally shoots and kills mother in walmart in ths US

[CoolJ]

You must have missed where I said the article linked to by CoolJ said that.

If you want to compare accidental deaths, then compare accidental deaths. Suicides are not accidental deaths.

A few hundred accidental firearm deaths per year vs. tens of thousands of accidental motor vehicle fatalities per year.

It's not even close. Cars are much more dangerous.

This cars vs. guns comparison is laughable.

Cars are being used all day everyday everywhere.
Cars are for driving. All deaths are accidental.

Guns are used in a very limited basis.
Guns are for killing. Most deaths are on purpose.

 

[sonjay]

Not walking back on anything. All of these stats, the ones I am citing and the ones you are, show correlation. No guns don't cause suicide. They don't cause homicide either. They just make both of them much easier.

What do I make of the Australian study?
As I said upstream, I will show you some stats and you will show me some stats. We can find stats and research to support whatever we want. It is the interpretation that counts. I would have to see the full article to comment, not the abstract.
For now, I will use what my common sense and intuition tell me.

You need to understand stats a little better, and think about what you think you're proving vs. what I'm showing.

You have claimed that guns cause homicide, violent crime, and suicide. You have been able to cherry-pick stats with narrowly selected datasets to support your position.

I have claimed that you are mistaken. All I have to do is show that there are some places with lots of guns and low crime. Lots of guns and low murder rate. Lots of guns and low suicide rate. Or, conversely, few guns and high crime. Few guns and high murder rates. Few guns and high suicide rates. Any one of those situations proves that your thesis is incorrect.

You: All dogs are brown. See, here's some stats -- all the dogs in this study are brown.

Me: No, not all dogs are brown. See, here's some black dogs, and some white dogs, and some gray dogs.

You: Well, studies can show anything. I'm right anyway. My studies say so.

You see, if there are places where there are few guns but high crime rates, it proves that high crime rates can exist independently of guns.

If there are places where there are many guns but low crime rates, it proves that the presence of guns does not cause crime.

Your stats only prove that there do indeed exist some places in the world where there's a positive correlation between guns and crime, or between guns and suicide. They do not prove that guns cause crime, or that in the absence of guns crime will always be lower.

My stats prove that your thesis is wrong. Just plain wrong. If your thesis were correct, there would not exist any place with high gun ownership and low crime rates, nor any place with low gun ownership and high crime rates.

 

[sonjay]

This cars vs. guns comparison is laughable.

Cars are being used all day everyday everywhere.
Cars are for driving. All deaths are accidental.

Guns are used in a very limited basis.
Guns are for killing. Most deaths are on purpose.

People who hate guns love to compare guns to cars when it suits them.

It's amusing how fast they back off when real facts are brought into the discussion.

The vast majority of guns are never ever used to kill anyone or shoot anyone. Guns are being used every day, all over this country, by peaceful, law-abiding people who don't kill anyone with them.

Guns are for hunting. Guns are for target shooting. Guns are for self-defense. Guns are for lots of things that are not killing. Seriously, there seems to be a tremendous misperception about guns and gun owners. If the only purpose of guns is "for killing," that suggests that the only reason anyone would want a gun is because they want to kill. And that couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[sonjay]

Well you aren't talking about me then. Because I have said specifically to YOU, that I have no problem with you personally owning a gun. I have no problem with a hunting rifle or two.
So either, you aren't paying attention to what I am saying. Or you are putting words in my mouth. Or both.

This is amusing. This is what my post was in response to:

I am beginning to believe from this thread and from doing lots of reading on the subject, that many have the mindset that they are preparing for either Armageddon or a Civil War. They want to be ready when this happens and they do not want anybody to get in the way of their preparations so they must do everything in their power to hold on to all of their guns. If that means the criminals get to keep theirs, then so be it.
JMO

Who is putting words in whose mouth?

 

[CoolJ]

You need to understand stats a little better, and think about what you think you're proving vs. what I'm showing.

You have claimed that guns cause homicide, violent crime, and suicide. You have been able to cherry-pick stats with narrowly selected datasets to support your position.

I have claimed that you are mistaken. All I have to do is show that there are some places with lots of guns and low crime. Lots of guns and low murder rate. Lots of guns and low suicide rate. Or, conversely, few guns and high crime. Few guns and high murder rates. Few guns and high suicide rates. Any one of those situations proves that your thesis is incorrect.

You: All dogs are brown. See, here's some stats -- all the dogs in this study are brown.

Me: No, not all dogs are brown. See, here's some black dogs, and some white dogs, and some gray dogs.

You: Well, studies can show anything. I'm right anyway. My studies say so.

You see, if there are places where there are few guns but high crime rates, it proves that high crime rates can exist independently of guns.

If there are places where there are many guns but low crime rates, it proves that the presence of guns does not cause crime.

Your stats only prove that there do indeed exist some places in the world where there's a positive correlation between guns and crime, or between guns and suicide. They do not prove that guns cause crime, or that in the absence of guns crime will always be lower.

My stats prove that your thesis is wrong. Just plain wrong. If your thesis were correct, there would not exist any place with high gun ownership and low crime rates, nor any place with low gun ownership and high crime rates.

No sonjay, you still aren't paying attention even though I state it every other post.
Guns don't Necessarily CAUSE death. But they make it easier for needless deaths to occur. Shall I say it again?

I know research VERY well. I read these medical journals on a daily basis whether I am debating about gun control or not. So yes I get statistics. Don't like them much, but I understand very well how it works.

I am not cherry picking stats whatsoever. All of the research on gun control is going to show correlation and not causation. This is because we would have to actually have people killed as part if our study in order to show causation. Obviously unethical and will never happen.

I would much rather have an intellectual discussion. But you keep citing research, so I do as well, to show you how easy it is.

So, you are saying if there is one little county with lots of guns and few deaths, that alone proves me wrong? If you believe that, you either don't know what I am trying to say, or you are incompetent. I am guessing the former because you seem competent enough.

Please explain this thought process a little more clearly?

 

[CoolJ]

This is amusing. This is what my post was in response to:



Who is putting words in whose mouth?

Notice how I said "from this thread and lots of reading on the subject..."

Notice how you said "I believe, from this thread.."?

 

[sonjay]

No sonjay, you still aren't paying attention even though I state it every other post.
Guns don't Necessarily CAUSE death. But they make it easier for needless deaths to occur. Shall I say it again?

I know research VERY well. I read these medical journals on a daily basis whether I am debating about gun control or not. So yes I get statistics. Don't like them much, but I understand very well how it works.

I am not cherry picking stats whatsoever. All of the research on gun control is going to show correlation and not causation. This is because we would have to actually have people killed as part if our study in order to show causation. Obviously unethical and will never happen.

I would much rather have an intellectual discussion. But you keep citing research, so I do as well, to show you how easy it is.

So, you are saying if there is one little county with lots of guns and few deaths, that alone proves me wrong? If you believe that, you either don't know what I am trying to say, or you are incompetent. I am guessing the former because you seem competent enough.

Please explain this thought process a little more clearly?

I'm saying that I've provided many links to research from a wide variety of sources that shows that there are many many places where there are lots of guns and almost no crime. And many places where there are few guns and very high crime. Cities, counties, states, provinces, and entire countries. Not just "one little county."

The totality of the research shows that there is no consistent positive correlation between firearm availability and crime, or between firearm availability and murder, or between firearm availability and suicide.

The totality of your posts on this thread have tried to insist that more guns = more crime, that more guns = more murder, that more guns = more suicide. That correlation exists in some places, but the opposite correlation exists in many other places, where more guns = less murder and more guns = less crime and more guns = less suicide.

Not all dogs are brown. Trotting out thousands upon thousands of brown dogs does nothing to negate the existence of the many thousands of white dogs, black dogs, and gray dogs. When your thesis is that all dogs are brown, I only need to produce one non-brown dog to disprove that thesis, but in fact I can produce thousands.

 

[al66pine]

Of course, it's possible. But, we are comparing apples to oranges as driving a car is regulated, while owning a gun is not in most places in the US. It speaks volumes to me that the number of deaths from guns is close to and projected to outnumber cars in the this year. I'd be interested to see data on time spent using each and number of deaths. I work from home, so don't use my car as much as many do. How often do gun owners use their guns?
I updated my post -- that's what I get for trying to multitask

bbm

Thx for update. Wanted to respond but didn't want to put words in your mouth. Just jumping off your post, re-
"number of deaths from guns is close to and projected to outnumber cars in the this year"
Okay, agreed for some segments of US pop & I've forgotten the exact age parameters (15-25? 16-30?); gender (males only?) & other factors.

Is it poss some ppl interp a study as showing 'this' & others interp same as showing 'that'?

Is it poss study conclusions depend on how study is designed, what populations are chosen, time period reviewed (one yr or 10?),
when study was done (1975? 2013?), how data are provided (self reporting by shooters? city PDs? County LE?) yada, yada.
who conducts study (gun manuf? legit Uni/college? NRA? political party-controlled group? nut-jobs from any side of argument? )

Partially depends on how criteria are sliced & diced & some variables that cannot be quantified or accounted for in study's result?

JM2cts.

 

[CoolJ]

I'm saying that I've provided many links to research from a wide variety of sources that shows that there are many many places where there are lots of guns and almost no crime. And many places where there are few guns and very high crime. Cities, counties, states, provinces, and entire countries. Not just "one little county."

The totality of the research shows that there is no consistent positive correlation between firearm availability and crime, or between firearm availability and murder, or between firearm availability and suicide.

The totality of your posts on this thread have tried to insist that more guns = more crime, that more guns = more murder, that more guns = more suicide. That correlation exists in some places, but the opposite correlation exists in many other places, where more guns = less murder and more guns = less crime and more guns = less suicide.

Not all dogs are brown. Trotting out thousands upon thousands of brown dogs does nothing to negate the existence of the many thousands of white dogs, black dogs, and gray dogs. When your thesis is that all dogs are brown, I only need to produce one non-brown dog to disprove that thesis, but in fact I can produce thousands.

My thesis is all dogs are brown? I don't see the comparison to what I am saying at all.

Never said more guns = more crime. Crime is crime. The criminals are going to commit crime.

Again(for about the 20th time) I am speaking of the relationship between guns and needless death.

And on the contrary, I have shown numerous studies, and don't have to cherry pick to do it, that show there is without a doubt a CORRELATION between guns and deaths by gun. I can continue if you wish..?

 

[sonjay]

My thesis is all dogs are brown? I don't see the comparison to what I am saying at all.

Never said more guns = more crime. Crime is crime. The criminals are going to commit crime.

Again(for about the 20th time) I am speaking of the relationship between guns and needless death.

And on the contrary, I have shown numerous studies, and don't have to cherry pick to do it, that show there is without a doubt a CORRELATION between guns and deaths by gun. I can continue if you wish..?

Maybe we're not talking about the same things here.

"relationship between guns and needless death"

I've shown that there is no consistent positive correlation between guns and murder. Nor between guns and violent crime. Nor between guns and suicide.

The number of unintentional deaths from firearms is so low as to be statistically insignificant.

Murderers murder with or without guns.

Violent criminals commit violence with or without guns.

Suicidal people commit suicide with or without guns.

So maybe you can enlighten me as to what "needless deaths" you think occur as a result of firearms, that would not occur in the absence of firearms? I know that you can't mean murder, violent crime or suicide, because as we've seen, there is no consistent correlation between guns and those deaths.

 

[CoolJ]

Maybe we're not talking about the same things here.

"relationship between guns and needless death"

I've shown that there is no consistent positive correlation between guns and murder. Nor between guns and violent crime. Nor between guns and suicide.

The number of unintentional deaths from firearms is so low as to be statistically insignificant.

Murderers murder with or without guns.

Violent criminals commit violence with or without guns.

Suicidal people commit suicide with or without guns.

So maybe you can enlighten me as to what "needless deaths" you think occur as a result of firearms, that would not occur in the absence of firearms? I know that you can't mean murder, violent crime or suicide, because as we've seen, there is no consistent correlation between guns and those deaths.

The evidence is actually a lot more solid than I originally thought. It is quite convincing actually:

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64
We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.
Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.
We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.
After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide

All of above can be seen here: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/


http://www.bu.edu/news/2013/09/13/n...between-rates-of-gun-ownership-and-homicides/
A new study from the American Journal of Public Health shows that U.S. states with higher estimated rates of gun ownership experience a higher number of firearms-related homicides.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study
More guns meant more deaths, they found. "The gun ownership rate was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death," says Bangalore.


p.s - there is even more. But, damn, isn't this enough?

 

[TrackerSam]

Penises and cars are made for things other than rape and driving drunk.
That is the difference. Just use things for what they are intended.
Unfortunately, guns are intended for killing.

Is killing someone who's trying to kill you murder? No, it's self defense or justified homicide and not punishable because we have the right to defend ourselves. Guns can prevent violence without firing them. Can we find a stat showing how many lives have been saved because someone had a firearm? I doubt it. Can more gun regulation prevent guns from being stolen or bought on the black market? No. Can more gun regulation prevent accidental tragedies. No. Gun regulations have no affect on bad people. Because some people become alcoholics, shall we deny alcohol to everyone? If you've never had the need to defend yourself, is it logical to assume you will never have to? The vast majority of law abiding gun owners have never needed to point them at or shoot anyone, but someday we might be in that situation and calling 911 isn't an option.
We don't plan to be in a car accident but we carry auto insurance just in case. We hope to never have critical health issues but we carry health insurance just in case. Guns are intended for defense. You need not fire the weapon in order to defend yourself with it. I would never buy a car and not use it for what it's intended for. But I do have a gun and hope I'll never need to use it. I was a Boy Scout, I'm prepared. I'm prepared to defend my life, my family and my property and I have that right.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Is killing someone who's trying to kill you murder? No, it's self defense or justified homicide and not punishable because we have the right to defend ourselves. Guns can prevent violence without firing them. Can we find a stat showing how many lives have been saved because someone had a firearm? I doubt it. Can more gun regulation prevent guns from being stolen or bought on the black market? No. Can more gun regulation prevent accidental tragedies. No. Gun regulations have no affect on bad people. Because some people become alcoholics, shall we deny alcohol to everyone? If you've never had the need to defend yourself, is it logical to assume you will never have to? The vast majority of law abiding gun owners have never needed to point them at or shoot anyone, but someday we might be in that situation and calling 911 isn't an option.
We don't plan to be in a car accident but we carry auto insurance just in case. We hope to never have critical health issues but we carry health insurance just in case. Guns are intended for defense. You need not fire the weapon in order to defend yourself with it. I would never buy a car and not use it for what it's intended for. But I do have a gun and hope I'll never need to use it. I was a Boy Scout, I'm prepared. I'm prepared to defend my life, my family and my property and I have that right.

If true, America would have a lower crime rate, and lower homicide rate than other developed countries, yet it is the opposite. Perhaps there are not enough of these deterrent guns? Is that what you think?

 

[TrackerSam]

If true, America would have a lower crime rate, and lower homicide rate than other developed countries, yet it is the opposite. Perhaps there are not enough of these deterrent guns? Is that what you think?

Not all homicides are committed with guns. Not all crimes are committed with guns. Without the deterrent guns the crime rate would be higher.
Some people put up signs declaring 'gun free home'. They had to take them down because they kept getting robbed.
Being publicly identified as to whether or not you are a gun owner is fine for thee but not me.

That is the attitude of many newspaper editors and journalists as was revealed in a video produced by Project Veritas. Here is the Project Veritas explanation of what happened:

Posing as "Citizens Against Senseless Violence," we visit the homes of journalists working for Westchester Journal News, MSNBC, and the Star-Ledger. We also visited the home of Eric Holder. None will take our signs that say "THIS HOME IS PROUDLY GUN FREE."
Since these reporters and editors did not consider it a violation of the privacy and safety of others to reveal which homes have guns and which homes don't, we went to see which of them would be willing to put a sign up publicly declaring their homes to be gun-free zones. While we didn't find any members of the media with the strength of their convictions, we did find quite a few guns, and some good explanations for why they might be necessary..... Guns for Me, but not for Thee.

Columnist Bob Braun of the New Jersey Star Ledger was refreshingly honest in his hypocrisy for refusing the lawn sign:

I agree with you and I am on your side on this, but I'm just wondering if that's not an invitation to somebody with a gun.

A visit to the home of MSNBC's Touré yields this hilariously confused response before he can come up with an explanation for his refusal:

Um... I mean... Uh... I mean... You know... I mean... I mean, uh, you know that I'd have to talk to my neighbors...

Note that three of the homes visited had armed guards. So guns are bad...except when privileged members of the media need them for protection. Also being publicly identified as to the state of gun ownership is not such a hot idea when it applies to them.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gla...s-refuse-yard-signs-say-home-proudly-gun-free

What part of "gun regulation has no affect on bad people" do you not understand?


 

[sonjay]

p.s - there is even more. But, damn, isn't this enough?

No. Because this goes back to the "all dogs are brown" analogy.

However many studies you can point to that find a positive correlation between guns and homicide, crime, or suicide, there are just as many studies that show no correlation at all between guns and homicide rates, crime rates, and suicide rates. And there are just as many studies that show a negative correlation between those things.

Not all dogs are brown. When I can easily point to many many dogs that are not brown, it doesn't matter how many brown dogs you can produce. You can keep on pointing to brown dogs until the end of time, but as long as I can point to dogs that aren't brown, any assertion that all dogs are brown is provably false.

Likewise, as long as I can point to the many, many studies that show no correlation or a negative correlation between guns and crime, any assertion that more guns = more crime is provably false.

Sometimes, in some places, more guns correlates positively with more crime.
In other places, more guns correlates negatively with crime.I

As long as there are places with high gun ownership and low crime, and places with low gun ownership and high crime, the assertion that more guns = more crime is false. Period.

 

[CoolJ]

No. Because this goes back to the "all dogs are brown" analogy.

However many studies you can point to that find a positive correlation between guns and homicide, crime, or suicide, there are just as many studies that show no correlation at all between guns and homicide rates, crime rates, and suicide rates. And there are just as many studies that show a negative correlation between those things.

Not all dogs are brown. When I can easily point to many many dogs that are not brown, it doesn't matter how many brown dogs you can produce. You can keep on pointing to brown dogs until the end of time, but as long as I can point to dogs that aren't brown, any assertion that all dogs are brown is provably false.

Likewise, as long as I can point to the many, many studies that show no correlation or a negative correlation between guns and crime, any assertion that more guns = more crime is provably false.

Sometimes, in some places, more guns correlates positively with more crime.
In other places, more guns correlates negatively with crime.I

As long as there are places with high gun ownership and low crime, and places with low gun ownership and high crime, the assertion that more guns = more crime is false. Period.

Show me a study that shows a negative correlation. The only one I have seen from you thus far(which didn't actually show a negative correlation, just the lack of a positive) is the one that compares the US to war torn and third world countries.

Show me something?

Still not getting this "all dogs are brown" analogy. The studies that I cited compare state to state, developed country to developed country. It is actually very overwhelming evidence. More so than I actually thought.

 

[TrackerSam]

There has always been crime and murder and always will be . These didn't come about with the invention of the gun and won't diminish due to stacks and stacks of regulations. Nor will tragic accidents. Laws don't prevent crime.

 

[daisy7]

bbm

Thx for update. Wanted to respond but didn't want to put words in your mouth. Just jumping off your post, re-
"number of deaths from guns is close to and projected to outnumber cars in the this year"
Okay, agreed for some segments of US pop & I've forgotten the exact age parameters (15-25? 16-30?); gender (males only?) & other factors.

Is it poss some ppl interp a study as showing 'this' & others interp same as showing 'that'?

Is it poss study conclusions depend on how study is designed, what populations are chosen, time period reviewed (one yr or 10?),
when study was done (1975? 2013?), how data are provided (self reporting by shooters? city PDs? County LE?) yada, yada.
who conducts study (gun manuf? legit Uni/college? NRA? political party-controlled group? nut-jobs from any side of argument? )

Partially depends on how criteria are sliced & diced & some variables that cannot be quantified or accounted for in study's result?

JM2cts.

ITA that you can make statistics paint any picture u want to see. This is from the CAR and the same source has been cited on this thread as why cars are more deadly than guns.

 

[daisy7]

I am so confused about the all dogs are brown comment. My last dog died and we haven't yet gotten another, but he was blond (and gray).

 

[daisy7]

ITA that you can make statistics paint any picture u want to see. This is from the CAR and the same source has been cited on this thread as why cars are more deadly than guns.

C dc stupid auto - correct