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

[CoolJ]

We don't -- because we can't -- lump all gun deaths together. Suicides comprise the majority of gun deaths -- about 2/3 of 'em. Those would happen anyway.

Vermont has the country's second lowest murder rate, and lowest gun murder rate. And it has the the 19th highest gun-ownership rate. Yes, there are a lot of guns there. There are very very few murders there. Those are very relevant numbers.

Maybe, just maybe, it's not the guns.

All I am saying is
More guns = more deaths. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
It just seems sensible to me that if you want to lower your nations numbers of gun deaths, your answer is to lower the number of guns.

Do you have a link to say that the suicides would happen anyway? That was my initial thought, but it appears the availability of guns in a country increases the amount of suicides.

Maybe it's not the guns, but the research thus far says there is a very, very high correlation. Just about every civilized country on the planet shows this trend.

 

[sonjay]

So what's going on in Hawaii where gun ownership is 6.7% and gun murders are 0.5 per 100,000? Or Rhode Island with 12.8% and 1.8 gun murders? Or Mississippi where there are more gun owners (55.3%) than Vermont and 4 gun murders per 100,000? Or Louisiana and Arkansas?

Or the Northern Territory, down your way?

http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/north...of-firearm-crime/story-fnk0b1zt-1227174002714

Second highest gun ownership rate in Australia, lowest rate of firearm crime.

Hmmmm...... Maybe, just maybe, it's not the guns that cause crime.

 

[sonjay]

All I am saying is
More guns = more deaths.
It just seems sensible to me that if you want to lower your nations numbers of gun deaths, your answer is to lower the number of guns.

Do you have a link to say that the suicides would happen anyway? That was my initial thought, but it appears the availability of guns in a country increases the amount of suicides.

Maybe it's not the guns, but the research thus far says there is a very, very high correlation. Just about every civilized country on the planet shows this trend.

Not true. See my immediately previous post.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Well, as long as we're discussing general questions arising from this incident, can someone explain why it is necessary that gun owners have a right to CONCEAL the weapons they carry?

Shouldn't I have a right to know who is armed and who is not? Then I can choose to leave Walmart if I find myself surrounded by guns.

To turn your thoughts upside down just to make a point => please remember that the criminals/repeat offenders are "concealed".

Maybe it would be more prudent to know who they are, right?

Moo

 

[Concerned Mama]

I'm not sure any more. I think the gun control came up as a way to protect the mother from victim blaming since the gun with which she was shot was her own, and the circumstances indicated that some basic tenets of carrying firearms were not followed. This conversation seems to have shifted from the profoundly sad, however unintentional, consequences of this young woman's actions to more general debates about gun ownership and regulation. At this time, no rules, no regulations, no defences about gun possession and use are going to help the father or the little boy, or the mother's friends and extended family recover from the loss of a woman who is remembered as a loving wife and mother. I hope that the family's immediate community treats them all with love and kindness, and gives them the time and resources they need in order to recover and support each other. JMO.

I agree that this particular family won't benefit from the passing of any gun laws. To be honest, even though I am in favor of more gun control, I really don't think passing any laws will change the habits and behavior of people who have grown up around guns and consider themselves responsible gun owners. This intelligent, respected mother considered herself a responsible gun owner, but is it ever responsible to leave a loaded gun within easy access of a toddler? Of course not. Arguing about the mom's legal right to carry a concealed weapon is irrelevant, imo. Legal or not, leaving a loaded gun where her son could access it was incredibly negligent on her part.

An analogy could be made to texting and driving. Operating a vehicle, as with owning a gun, requires undivided attention -- thoughts and eyes on the road. Any distractions increase a driver's chances of being in an accident. Texting is known to be a distraction that increases a driver's risk of crashing, so laws have been passed in many states making texting while driving illegal. Yet people still exercise extremely poor judgment, continuing to text and drive. They think accidents happen to other people, not them, because certainly they must be better drivers than those people who can't manage to multitask and end up crashing, right? Wrong.

New laws won't change the behavior and habits of people who have grown up surrounded by guns, just as new laws prohibiting texting while driving haven't changed the behavior of people who were already used to texting while driving. Would new laws prevent future tragedies? Perhaps.

 

[CoolJ]

Not true. See my immediately previous post.

Shall I take one out of your books and cite dozens of research articles stating that it is in fact true. More guns = more deaths

You can cherry pick the outliers if you wish, but the fact remains, and the research supports worldwide.... more guns = more deaths.

 

[sonjay]

To turn your thoughts upside down just to make a point => please remember that the criminals/repeat offenders are "concealed".

Maybe it would be more prudent to know who they are, right?

Moo

Good point. Maybe we can pass a law requiring convicted felons to have facial tattoos. Because we should have a right to know who they are.

 

[Montjoy]

Or D.C., with both the lowest gun ownership rate and the highest murder rate in the entire country?

It means that gun ownership cannot be proven to either cause or prevent crime. Therefore, it's a non-issue (or should be) when discussing crime.

Goodness, you don't really think that DC is a valid comparison case? It's just one city, more or less. It doesn't have walls or border guards. This sort of example doesn't help the discussion at all.

eta: cherry picking anecdotes and data points really doesn't do anything to dispute the global statistics that are professionally produced and have repeatedly shown that gun control reduces gun deaths. It's like saying "I know a lady who drank a fifth of Chivas and smoked 2 packs every day who lived to be 110 years old, therefore drinking and smoking aren't bad for you."

 

[Brightbird]

Every time there is a push for more gun control, gun sales soar in America. This, if anything, reflects the opinion of majority.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What does that have to do with pro gun people saying that all gun control people are fanatics with an agenda to ban all guns? Also, I find it hard to believe that the majority of gun owners go buy another gun every time there's a push for more gun control. It's reported that about 35% of households in America have a gun. I don't believe that at least 54 million people (18% of total population) go and buy a gun every time the government tries to regulate guns.

 

[sonjay]

Shall I take one out of your books and cite dozens of research articles stating that it is in fact true. More guns = more deaths

You can cherry pick the outliers if you wish, but the fact remains, and the research supports worldwide.... more guns = more deaths.

I'm not cherrypicking outliers. Research worldwide shows many many places where gun ownership is low and crime rates are high, where gun ownership is low and crime rates are low, where gun ownership is high and crime rates are low, and where gun ownership is high and crime rates are high. Gun ownership = lack of correlation with crime rates. If anything, there's more research showing that more guns = less crime, but I'm not even claiming that. I'm simply showing that crime rates do not correlate positively with gun ownership rates. All the wishing in the world won't change that cold, hard fact.

 

[sonjay]

Goodness, you don't really think that DC is a valid comparison case? It's just one city, more or less. It doesn't have walls or border guards. This sort of example doesn't help the discussion at all.

eta: cherry picking anecdotes and data points really doesn't do anything to dispute the global statistics that are professionally produced and have repeatedly shown that gun control reduces gun deaths. It's like saying "I know a lady who drank a fifth of Chivas and smoked 2 packs every day who lived to be 110 years old, therefore drinking and smoking aren't bad for you."

Wait... when someone cites Seattle vs. Vancouver, that's okay, but when I cite D.C. (in the context of also considering Vermont and various other states) that's cherry picking? When I cite the Northern Territory, I suppose that's cherry picking too? When I point out that after Illinois finally got legal concealed carry, homicide rates went down? I suppose that every single data point that you don't like is cherry picking.

 

[SStarr33]

Good point. Maybe we can pass a law requiring convicted felons to have facial tattoos. Because we should have a right to know who they are.

I heart you sonjay:loveyou:

 

[sonjay]

What does that have to do with pro gun people saying that all gun control people are fanatics with an agenda to ban all guns? Also, I find it hard to believe that the majority of gun owners go buy another gun every time there's a push for more gun control. It's reported that about 35% of households in America have a gun. I don't believe that at least 54 million people (18% of total population) go and buy a gun every time the government tries to regulate guns.

The savvier ones don't. They buy their guns when there's not an active gun control push going on.

But lots and lots of people do run out and buy more guns when there's an active push for more gun control. Notice the increase in firearm purchase background checks after Sandy Hook, when every gun-grabbing politician had to introduce their own bill on gun control:

 

[sonjay]

I heart you sonjay:loveyou:

LOL! It was Honey's idea to identify criminals. I just piggybacked on that to suggest facial tattoos. It's not a bad idea. People with criminal records are obviously much more dangerous than peaceful, law-abiding concealed-weapons carriers.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

There are too many unknown variables for a reasonable debate because:

For instance, If guns were banned (legally) would those intent on murdering find another mode to murder? I suggest, probably.

Second, if the responsible gun owners who have successfully defended themselves against criminals were no longer allowed to own guns, would the victim death rate soar. I suggest, probably.

Moo

 

[al66pine]

.... More guns = more deaths.... worldwide.... more guns = more deaths.

SBM

CoolJ and others
Pls indulge me, w this light hearted thought, in the midst of this serious discussion.

More guns = more deaths?
Sorry, no, only one death per person, no more, no less.

Back to topic.


RIP, young mother. May others learn from your actions and create a safer environment around themselves, as responsible gun owners and users.

 

[sonjay]

For instance, If guns were banned (legally) would those intent on murdering find another mode to murder? I suggest, probably.

The survey says "yes."

 

[al66pine]

Good point. Maybe we can pass a law requiring convicted felons to have facial tattoos.
Because we should have a right to know who they are.

. bbm

Good idea, sonjay.

Let's shore up the impact of new law, by requiring felon tattoos be done w Glow in the Dark ink, so we can spot them at night.
J/K.

 

[sonjay]

More cherry picking. Australia this time.

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

• In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
• Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
• Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847


If there are enough cherries to pick, does it eventually stop being cherry picking and become "research"? How many cherries are needed for that, exactly?

 

[sonjay]

. bbm

Good idea, sonjay.

Let's shore up the impact of new law, by requiring felon tattoos be done w Glow in the Dark ink, so we can spot them at night.
J/K.

Ooooh, I like it!

And bells, don't forget bells. Blind people have just as much right to know when felons are in the vicinity.