| Author |
|
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14812
|
| Posted: 13 October 2015 at 12:48pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Substituting car accidents with swimming pool drownings doesn't make
the argument any more compelling.
QUOTE:
I guess we're all in agreement that Dr. Ben Carson is an
asshat, then? |
|
|
No argument here.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Eric Ladd
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 4506
|
| Posted: 13 October 2015 at 12:56pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
I am in total agreement with Kevin. Carson seems like a cul chapeau.
Somebody compare unintentional drownings with unintentional shooting deaths. Then compare intentional drowning with intentional shooting deaths to set Marcio straight. I doubt he realizes that he is trying to equate an accidental death with an intentional death. It might shed some light on the lethal potential of swimming pools and guns.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132240
|
| Posted: 13 October 2015 at 1:17pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Home swimming pools are dangerous. Every day, an average two children dir from unintentional drowning, hence, they kill more than any mass shotting every year, hence, swimming pools are dangerous. Should a special registration be created? All swimming pool owners should be certified every two to five years to own a swimming pool?••• I realize English is probably your second language, but you express yourself too clearly not to be getting this: swimming pools were not created expressly with the purpose of killing. Guns were and are.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Eric Ladd
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 4506
|
| Posted: 13 October 2015 at 1:21pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
If "swimming pools kills just the same (as guns)" then you would be fine with owning a swimming pool instead of owning a gun. If you prefer one over the other then I don't think swimming pools "kill just the same". All death is not created equally, Marcio. Comparing vastly different subjects like accidental death with intentional death misses the point horribly. I'm afraid you don't understand how to debate this subject.
* edited to remove my snarky comment.
Edited by Eric Ladd on 13 October 2015 at 1:38pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4548
|
| Posted: 13 October 2015 at 2:17pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Brian Skelley wrote:
I honestly keep wondering if the pro-gun people aren't the majority. {snip}
I can't help but feel that America is mostly for guns and not the vocal anti-gun groups. |
|
|
Well, here's a poll that says 92 percent of Americans support universal background checks. Here's one that says 59 percent of Americans favor banning semi-automatic weapons. Here's one that says 74 percent of NRA members support universal background checks.
So why aren't such laws enacted? I think it's primarily because people who oppose any sort of gun regulation are more willing to make that the single issue that they base their vote upon. If a candidate supports any kind of gun regulation the gun extremists will always vote against them, regardless of what their stand is on other issues. By contrast, people who support gun control will often end up voting for someone who opposes it, because they agree with them on other issues. Even though a majority supports laws such as the ones noted above, they have not been willing to punish legislators at the ballot box for preventing them. The single-mindedness of the pro-gun voters gives them a disproportionate impact on elections.
Edited by Jason Czeskleba on 13 October 2015 at 2:22pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 15782
|
| Posted: 13 October 2015 at 2:27pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Ah, but what about stairs and kitchens? We shouldn't regulate lethal weapons because people burn themselves on stoves and trip down stairs.
A lot of people really do unintentionally drown in swimming pools each year. Funnily enough, you can try to combat this by putting fences around pools, have better supervision, give kids swimming lessons earlier. What would not work would be to try and oppose any move to make them safer.
I would be all for legislation to require adequate safety provisions for swimming pools. It might help save lives.
Swimming pools deaths in the US are a lot lower per year than gun deaths, by the way. Note that 2 children per day do NOT drown in swimming pools. The CDC says two children drown unintentionally per day in the US.... This includes lakes, the sea, ponds, reservoirs, wells, sewage plants. Good luck trying to regulate the ocean.
The CDC cites one of the key factors of drowning as being lack of swimming ability by the way. If we try to compare this to guns, its like looking at lack of ability to repel bullets.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Skelley
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 February 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 231
|
| Posted: 13 October 2015 at 3:20pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Eric Ladd wrote:
| I don't think we can say guns are heavily regulated. |
|
|
Again, my point stands.. just because you don't think they're regulated enough doesn't mean they're unregulated.
Eric Ladd wrote:
| published information from reputable organizations |
|
|
Is there such a place that you would accept the data from even if it didn't support your want to show guns are bad? I've now seen studies from Harvard, and ones from various countries that show guns are statistically better to than not having them. I've also seen the studies that show the flip. A lot of study bias is involved (on both sides) on everything I've seen. Even then, as you keep alluding to a gun death (accidental or intentional) matters more than other crimes that that gun could stop (including mass shootings), would any study even matter to you?
Kevin Hagerman wrote:
| I guess we're all in agreement that Dr. Ben Carson is an asshat, then? |
|
|
Is that what we're supposed to be talking about??? ;)
Mr. Czeskleba, I really don't discount the data you're providing as with the exception of banning semi-auto weapons (which feels like the polls don't understand what's being asked that is, as almost every gun is semi-auto, they even use the term semi-automatic and assault-type weapons" without stating what that would be, which is important as you start getting into what looks/sounds scary to one person may not be to another..) is probably the truth. I myself agree with background checks, as well as licensing. I don't go to the extremes that Mr. Ladd is going, but even as a guy that likes to shoot guns I agree the laws are in need of change. I just really feel that a solution needs to come educated place. I do, however point out that every time a vote comes up, almost always it goes in the pro-gun side. That's a vote with the people, who aren't "bought off" by the NRA. That's why I have to wonder if the very vocal anti-gun side isn't the minority. I doubt anyone could really say. Sadly, on every topic the noise distorts the reality, which both sides are guilty of.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Marcio Ferreira
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 September 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 2518
|
| Posted: 13 October 2015 at 3:29pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
And here I am, thinking that people are only concerned with deaths, not if they happened because of the device that caused it. Why people dead in car "accidents" caused by criminals are less important? Cars can be used to kill. Planes can be used to kill, the whole world will never forget September 11th or the Germanwings pilot who decided to finish his life with everyone on board. Weapons, like guns, can be used to kill, yes, but the same rule applies to many artifacts.
If we establish that Police is the main user of guns in civilian life, and that almost every police officer uses and carries a gun, and yet, their main use of their guns is not to kill people, but to enforce their willing into others and obtain cooperation, then, my point that guns were to created specifically to kill, but to empower the user of the gun.
Consider the number of lives who are saved by gun protection. Anyone cared to comment on the story of Suzanna Gratia Hupp, she could have saved her parents. Many lives are saved every year because of guns. Bad guys will think twice before breaking into your house if they have reasons to believe that you are armed and know how to use your weapon. Stories about guns being stolen by criminals conveniently omit the stories in which guns saved lives or were used to get rid of bad guys.
Stop ignoring the fact that the fraction of deaths caused by guns in the hands of mentally disturbed people is only a tiny tiny fraction of the total numbers of deaths caused by firearms. And these deaths are not more important than deaths caused in avoidable car accidents, caused by irresponsible parenting. And, just like all examples that I mentioned, the main variable in these deaths is the human factor.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132240
|
| Posted: 13 October 2015 at 3:30pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Again, my point stands.. just because you don't think they're regulated enough doesn't mean they're unregulated.••• Fall back on the either/or ploy, and you automatically lose your argument. There are more than two settings between regulated and unregulated. Anyway, I think this thread is done. The gun lovers will always invoke fantasy over common sense. Might as well debate with a wall.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
