I have obviously got it completely wrong.
- Thread starter Lew Rodd
- Start date
- Status
Frohickey
Member
...Lew Rodd...
You are approaching the gun issue through the misuse of guns (accidental shooting, crime), while the majority of us here are approaching the gun issue through the practical necessity of gun (for self defense, for hunting, to preserve freedom).
I think that guns are necessary, and the inappropriate use of guns (accidental shootings and crime) can be minimized or perhaps even eliminated through education, training, law enforcement, and swift punishment.
If children from kindergarden to high school were exposed to the correct and safe use of firearms, a substantial amount of the accidental shootings would never happen. Then, you would be just left with the criminal use of guns.
Now, how do you propose eliminating crime? Do you propose eliminating the opportunity and liberties that law-abiding people enjoy because the same opportunity and liberties could be used by criminals to commit their crimes? I think that we should eliminate criminals instead.
What do you think?
You are approaching the gun issue through the misuse of guns (accidental shooting, crime), while the majority of us here are approaching the gun issue through the practical necessity of gun (for self defense, for hunting, to preserve freedom).
I think that guns are necessary, and the inappropriate use of guns (accidental shootings and crime) can be minimized or perhaps even eliminated through education, training, law enforcement, and swift punishment.
If children from kindergarden to high school were exposed to the correct and safe use of firearms, a substantial amount of the accidental shootings would never happen. Then, you would be just left with the criminal use of guns.
Now, how do you propose eliminating crime? Do you propose eliminating the opportunity and liberties that law-abiding people enjoy because the same opportunity and liberties could be used by criminals to commit their crimes? I think that we should eliminate criminals instead.
What do you think?
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
thumbody
Member
Lew, lets take a look at the wonderful world with no guns ,OK
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml
Yep thats the answer to make the world less violent, take away the means of defense of the innocent.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml
Yep thats the answer to make the world less violent, take away the means of defense of the innocent.
sm
member
Plankowner Bandana on
Lew Rodd,
I posted some links in your first thread. I did that for a number of reasons:
-Your benefit.
-Benefit of new members of how THR conducts a civil discussion on subjects that often Responsible Firearm Owners are accused of being uneducated knuckle-draggers when confronted with and discussing.
Take note of the Documented Cites from those links and from posters in the original thread.
-I KNOW THR and TFL are is essence Global Libraries. We have Folks from all over the world that read THR and TFL.
~ Some are Responsible Firearm Owners
~ Some are Fence Sitters reading to learn.
~ Some are TYRANNY trying to find anything to use against Responsible Firearm Owners and to persuade Fence Sitters.
WE cannot change the Thinking of Tyranny and Anti-Gun folks - that easy, some are too far gone. Still they read to find anything to use against us, anything to skew.
Tyranny, Brady, Rebecca Peters...et al. - WE know whom you are, we know you read THR and TFL. We are watching you in more ways than you are us - including reading these forums.
Fence sitters - Please read and use the cites provided in a civil manner by THR and TFL and our Sister Sites - to make an informed decison. These cites we URGE you to investigate for yourselves. WE will earn your trust honestly - and not post false information - that is what Tyranny does.
See threads like this are viewable by all. These threads get hits from search engines all over the world. One never knows what a thread, or post will / has done for Freedom and Responsible Firearm Owners.
WE have members that were once Anti-Gun, Some were fence sitters.
They investigated cites for themselves, and made their choices accordingly.
Do a search for Susan Gratia -Hupp any of you lurkers out there, be you - for us, against us - or not sure yet.
Steve
Lew Rodd,
I posted some links in your first thread. I did that for a number of reasons:
-Your benefit.
-Benefit of new members of how THR conducts a civil discussion on subjects that often Responsible Firearm Owners are accused of being uneducated knuckle-draggers when confronted with and discussing.
Take note of the Documented Cites from those links and from posters in the original thread.
-I KNOW THR and TFL are is essence Global Libraries. We have Folks from all over the world that read THR and TFL.
~ Some are Responsible Firearm Owners
~ Some are Fence Sitters reading to learn.
~ Some are TYRANNY trying to find anything to use against Responsible Firearm Owners and to persuade Fence Sitters.
WE cannot change the Thinking of Tyranny and Anti-Gun folks - that easy, some are too far gone. Still they read to find anything to use against us, anything to skew.
Tyranny, Brady, Rebecca Peters...et al. - WE know whom you are, we know you read THR and TFL. We are watching you in more ways than you are us - including reading these forums.
Fence sitters - Please read and use the cites provided in a civil manner by THR and TFL and our Sister Sites - to make an informed decison. These cites we URGE you to investigate for yourselves. WE will earn your trust honestly - and not post false information - that is what Tyranny does.
See threads like this are viewable by all. These threads get hits from search engines all over the world. One never knows what a thread, or post will / has done for Freedom and Responsible Firearm Owners.
WE have members that were once Anti-Gun, Some were fence sitters.
They investigated cites for themselves, and made their choices accordingly.
Do a search for Susan Gratia -Hupp any of you lurkers out there, be you - for us, against us - or not sure yet.
Steve
Your statistic of 5,285 is incorrect. It was deliberately calculated to include gang members and other "children" under age 21.
But the real point is your question: "Is this the price we must pay to live in a FREE country?" The answer is: No matter how high the price of freedom, consider it cheap. Whether 5 children, 5,000, or fifty million die each year, there is nothing in this world more important than liberty.
Offwhite
member
It seems like there has been a steady stream of trolls/anti's coming on just to get everyone worked up. If you want to bash firearms go to another forum please...
you see even "gun nuts" can be polite & civil
you see even "gun nuts" can be polite & civil
Vex
Member
Lew Rodd,
Alright, first off, lets clear up some of you un-referenced statistics. All of my statistics will be from the 2003 year, and all information will be referenced with links so you can see for yourself the information.
First off, your statistics. You state there are 5,285 children killed in the USA by firearms, no referenced year given. Well, how do you classify children? Here are the statistics I found: (pdf, 1MB) ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/ncipc/10LC-2003/PDF/10lc-violence.pdf
Ages 5-9, Homicides with firearms: 48 (this was the 5th leading cause of death, the first being motorvehicle/traffic, followed by unintentional burning, drowning, and "other/land transport")
Ages 10-14, Homicides with firearms: 139 (this was the 4th leading cause of death. The leaders, in order, are motorvehicle/traffic, suicide by suffocation, and unintentional drowning)
Ages 15-24, Homicides with firearms: 4,410 (this jumped up to number 2, being beaten out only by Unintentional motorvehicle/traffic with 10,736)
Ages 25-34, Homicides with firearms: 3,540 (again number 2, with Unintentional motorvehcle/traffic at 6,675)
So what can we discern from this data? Well, "child" is defined on dictionary.com as "A person between birth and puberty." Seriously, here is the link: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=child And yet again, and been itterated so many times: if motorvehicle/traffic accidents are the leading cause in every age group, why aren't you people trying to ban cars?
So, what year is puberty? Most will agree it's somewhere around 13 to 14 years old. So, based on the definition of "child" and the statistics I linked from the CDC, we conclude that during the 2003 school year, there were 187 (48 + 139) children killed in homicides by firearms during 2003.
How does this compare to the other countries you stated?
How do we compare with those of our neighbor Canada, which has very strict gun control laws?
Population of USA: 295, 724, 134
Homicide of person ages 5-14 with firearm: 1 per 1,581,465
Population of Canada: 32, 538, 804
Homicide of "child" with firearm: 1 per 212,671
Now, note that since you didn't give an age group or a year, I had to list the Canadian ratio of homicides as those of "children." But the data speaks for itself.... a child is 6 times more likely to be killed in Canada with a gun than in the USA. How do you explain this?
And Germany?
Population of Germany: 82, 431, 390
Homicide of "child" with firearm: 1 per 1,446,164
So now we're nearly on par with Germany, but the ratio is bigger for Germany. You're more likely to be killed in Germany with a firearm than in the USA.
And what about the very liberal (and quite traiterous) France?
Population of France: 60, 656, 178
Homicide of "child" with firearm: 1 per 556, 478
Now we conclude that in France, a "child" is 3 times more likely to be killed with a firearm than in the USA. How do you explain THIS?
Now, I will concede that in Great Britain, the ratio is lower....
Population of Great Britain: 60, 441, 457
Homicide of "child" with firearm: 3,181,129
So you're 2 times more likely to have a "child" killed in the USA than in Great Britain. I wonder what their other statistics are? They have more beatings, robberies, and whats more, I found information pointing out that there are more replica guns used in crimes than real guns.... to the tune of 8 to 1. How is someone just going to walk into a bank or somewhere with a replica gun and rob someone? I'll tell ya: There's no chance of self-defense by the victim! They're creating a culture of victims.... of sheep... they might as well just lay down and let the entire island become run by organized crime.
The meaning for this information is to show you that, even though there is a problem with gun-homicides of children in the USA, it's not nearly as great as it is in Canada.
My theory? Firearms training. Since we have access to many different types of firearms, and it's been a definitive part of our culture since the inception of this great country, we've taught and passed down the safe and proper handling of firearms. Look into this more, and you will see the majority of firearms deaths, both homicides and accidental, are from the inner city, where hunting, target shooting, and safe firearms handling isn't part of the culture. My advice to you is to get your liberal friends, make friends with people who are willing to go into the inner city schools and teach firearms handling, and teach people how to avoid accidents. Remove the gangs, educate the utterly impaired and negligent parents, and turn these inner city children into adults. Don't punish the entire country because of the acts of a few irresponsible criminals.
Something else I want to point out, while i'm on a spree: The unemployment rate in Cadana is 6.4%. In the USA it's only 4.7%, even though our population is more than 9 times bigger. Do me a favor.... take this information back to your liberal cronies and let them know the condition of the economy isn't as bad as they want us to believe.
Alright, first off, lets clear up some of you un-referenced statistics. All of my statistics will be from the 2003 year, and all information will be referenced with links so you can see for yourself the information.
First off, your statistics. You state there are 5,285 children killed in the USA by firearms, no referenced year given. Well, how do you classify children? Here are the statistics I found: (pdf, 1MB) ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/ncipc/10LC-2003/PDF/10lc-violence.pdf
Ages 5-9, Homicides with firearms: 48 (this was the 5th leading cause of death, the first being motorvehicle/traffic, followed by unintentional burning, drowning, and "other/land transport")
Ages 10-14, Homicides with firearms: 139 (this was the 4th leading cause of death. The leaders, in order, are motorvehicle/traffic, suicide by suffocation, and unintentional drowning)
Ages 15-24, Homicides with firearms: 4,410 (this jumped up to number 2, being beaten out only by Unintentional motorvehicle/traffic with 10,736)
Ages 25-34, Homicides with firearms: 3,540 (again number 2, with Unintentional motorvehcle/traffic at 6,675)
So what can we discern from this data? Well, "child" is defined on dictionary.com as "A person between birth and puberty." Seriously, here is the link: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=child And yet again, and been itterated so many times: if motorvehicle/traffic accidents are the leading cause in every age group, why aren't you people trying to ban cars?
So, what year is puberty? Most will agree it's somewhere around 13 to 14 years old. So, based on the definition of "child" and the statistics I linked from the CDC, we conclude that during the 2003 school year, there were 187 (48 + 139) children killed in homicides by firearms during 2003.
How does this compare to the other countries you stated?
Lew Rodd said:
How do we compare with those of our neighbor Canada, which has very strict gun control laws?
Population of USA: 295, 724, 134
Homicide of person ages 5-14 with firearm: 1 per 1,581,465
Population of Canada: 32, 538, 804
Homicide of "child" with firearm: 1 per 212,671
Now, note that since you didn't give an age group or a year, I had to list the Canadian ratio of homicides as those of "children." But the data speaks for itself.... a child is 6 times more likely to be killed in Canada with a gun than in the USA. How do you explain this?
And Germany?
Population of Germany: 82, 431, 390
Homicide of "child" with firearm: 1 per 1,446,164
So now we're nearly on par with Germany, but the ratio is bigger for Germany. You're more likely to be killed in Germany with a firearm than in the USA.
And what about the very liberal (and quite traiterous) France?
Population of France: 60, 656, 178
Homicide of "child" with firearm: 1 per 556, 478
Now we conclude that in France, a "child" is 3 times more likely to be killed with a firearm than in the USA. How do you explain THIS?
Now, I will concede that in Great Britain, the ratio is lower....
Population of Great Britain: 60, 441, 457
Homicide of "child" with firearm: 3,181,129
So you're 2 times more likely to have a "child" killed in the USA than in Great Britain. I wonder what their other statistics are? They have more beatings, robberies, and whats more, I found information pointing out that there are more replica guns used in crimes than real guns.... to the tune of 8 to 1. How is someone just going to walk into a bank or somewhere with a replica gun and rob someone? I'll tell ya: There's no chance of self-defense by the victim! They're creating a culture of victims.... of sheep... they might as well just lay down and let the entire island become run by organized crime.
The meaning for this information is to show you that, even though there is a problem with gun-homicides of children in the USA, it's not nearly as great as it is in Canada.
My theory? Firearms training. Since we have access to many different types of firearms, and it's been a definitive part of our culture since the inception of this great country, we've taught and passed down the safe and proper handling of firearms. Look into this more, and you will see the majority of firearms deaths, both homicides and accidental, are from the inner city, where hunting, target shooting, and safe firearms handling isn't part of the culture. My advice to you is to get your liberal friends, make friends with people who are willing to go into the inner city schools and teach firearms handling, and teach people how to avoid accidents. Remove the gangs, educate the utterly impaired and negligent parents, and turn these inner city children into adults. Don't punish the entire country because of the acts of a few irresponsible criminals.
Something else I want to point out, while i'm on a spree: The unemployment rate in Cadana is 6.4%. In the USA it's only 4.7%, even though our population is more than 9 times bigger. Do me a favor.... take this information back to your liberal cronies and let them know the condition of the economy isn't as bad as they want us to believe.
Molon Labe
Member
Yes, it is sad so many people are killed using guns. And yes, some of them are children. But you know what? I would rather have the crime rate stay exactly where it is than give up my right to keep and bear arms.
Harry Tuttle
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2003
- Messages
- 3,093
Attachments
Aguila Blanca
Member
"Figures never lie, but liars often figure."
*** (My late grandmother)
((I am referring way back to the original figures cited, not to the chart directly preceding this post, BTW))
*** (My late grandmother)
((I am referring way back to the original figures cited, not to the chart directly preceding this post, BTW))
Princecookie
Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 25
I'm dont understand the term.
Justin, I'm new to this forum and I don't understand what you mean by trolling. Could you explain. Thanks
Justin, I'm new to this forum and I don't understand what you mean by trolling. Could you explain. Thanks
rbernie
Contributing Member
JohnBT
Member
"I am referring way back to the original figures cited"
We knew that.
"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics" - variously attributed to Mark Twain, Benjamin Disraeli and others.
John
We knew that.
"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics" - variously attributed to Mark Twain, Benjamin Disraeli and others.
John
Lew Rodd, I happen to completely agree with you...
On one point...
Yes, you do.
Carefully read the above posts. Follow the links. We have some very intelligent people on here. Pay attention to them. Try to learn instead of believing dogma and the media.
Its a whole different world out there than what you have been led to believe.
On one point...
Yes, you do.
Carefully read the above posts. Follow the links. We have some very intelligent people on here. Pay attention to them. Try to learn instead of believing dogma and the media.
Its a whole different world out there than what you have been led to believe.
Hey Lew, this Bud's for you: If you notice a dude in a clinical jacket staring at you he's probably a proctologist.
Child Passenger Deaths Involving Drinking Drivers – Study - USA
Main Category: Alcohol / Addiction / Illegal Drugs News
Article Date: 06 Feb 2004 - 0:00am (PDT)
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children ages one year or older, and one in four of these crash deaths involves a driver who has consumed alcohol.
This study also found that 68 percent of children killed in alcohol-related crashes in the United States between 1997 and 2002 were riding in the same vehicle as the drinking driver.
Sixty-eight percent of the drinking drivers involved in these crashes survived, suggesting that many of the children might also have survived had they been properly restrained.
Additional key findings include:
-- A total of 2,335 (24 percent) of the 9, 622 child passengers who died in crashes from 1997 to 2002 involved drinking drivers.
The Kennedys are a bigger threat to society than Winchester firearms.
rk
Child Passenger Deaths Involving Drinking Drivers – Study - USA
Main Category: Alcohol / Addiction / Illegal Drugs News
Article Date: 06 Feb 2004 - 0:00am (PDT)
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children ages one year or older, and one in four of these crash deaths involves a driver who has consumed alcohol.
This study also found that 68 percent of children killed in alcohol-related crashes in the United States between 1997 and 2002 were riding in the same vehicle as the drinking driver.
Sixty-eight percent of the drinking drivers involved in these crashes survived, suggesting that many of the children might also have survived had they been properly restrained.
Additional key findings include:
-- A total of 2,335 (24 percent) of the 9, 622 child passengers who died in crashes from 1997 to 2002 involved drinking drivers.
The Kennedys are a bigger threat to society than Winchester firearms.
rk
Mortech
Member
Can we at least use the term 'Underbridge Gnome' ??? 
armedandsafe
Member
At the risk of getting locked, I will say that I love trolls. They bring out a wide variety of well researched facts which would be difficult to locate on one's own hook. I learn as much from these threads as from all the others combined, I think. 
Pops
Pops
Thank You : Because you should then realize I mean you no harm and me simply being a gun owner is not cause for concern !
Well this is partly true , and you could say the same thing about a rock or a stick when it comes to self defense issues. Unfortunatly mankind does have its share of animals that will prey on those who can't defend themselves. It's each persons choice wether to match the ability of these preditors or to go down like sheep. Firearm ownership however is more than just about self defense. There is still the other major uses in the shooting sports. Some like to gulf for sport, some like to shoot .
Very true , and that should be well understood by looking at things like the so called war on drugs. There are always going to be people who will not follow the law - do you realy want just those who would be criminals to have firearms ? Remember the preditor thing ?
I at least agree with you in part here - the part about forgeting the statistics anyway. My statistics professor started my first day in class with this statement : " There are lies, then there are big lies, and then there are statistics " You can only draw proper conclusions from a set of numbers if you do proper gathering of the numbers and analysis based on the parameters established to gather them. People with an agenda who have already drawn a conclusion can always set the parameters of the numbers gathered to reach that conclusion.
Hard to say wether your correct when you say that Americans are in love with guns. I tend to believe this is a speculation rather than a fact and I don't think you are alone in America with your anti-firearm views. There are a lot of people working very hard to strip the right to keep and bear arms away from those who do believe in the right and yes need to be armed.
I recognize that many are well intended . Believing this country would be better off without firearms and that banning them would save lives . To them I say study history and recognize that disarming good law abiding people is not the answer to being safe - it is the doorway to servitude.
Lew,
I have a hard time understanding what you are saying in your posts. Are you a native english speaker? Please take a bit more time to compose or edit what you write. I don't want to come off as a grammar nazi, my own writing is far from perfect, but yours is at the point where there is a failure to communicate, at least with me. This may also be due to the use of sarcasm. Remember, sarcasm does not translate well on the internet, and in a messy sentence to beginwith, I find it get lost entirely.
That said, there are a few problems with your info.
There are more developed countries than you include statistics for. Out of say 50 countries, you compare gun rates for just 5. Why these 5? Why don't you include countries like switzerland with extremely high gun access but low child death?
You can make anything you want sound good by picking data.
A good example showing how complex the gun-crime-death-accident issue is can be illustrated by some examples of US states.
Hawaii has the harshest gun laws of any US state, and has the lowest per capita instances of accidental gun death, gun crime, etc etc. Yet the area thast has even harsher gun laws, Washington DC, has higher gun crime and gun death figures than any other state. Clearly just gun regs don't impact gun crime figures.
You would be correct in pointing out that Hawaii is an island, it is hard to get illegal guns in, whereas DC you can drive guns into it from places where it is easier to get guns. Then take a look at Montana and Alaska, they are the 2nd and 3rd lowest per capita in those very same gun crime and gun accident catagories yet they are both known for having very few gun restriction laws, plus they are just as easy to smuggle guns into as DC is.
Guns and how they relate to crime and accident is a very complex issue. What it boils down to for me is two things. #1, I have no (or very little) control on how a gun is used against me to do violence, but I have total control on how a gun I use posess is used either for voilence or accident. (Hence I can ignore statments like 'you are more likely to accidentally kill a loved one than an intruder with your gun' because I will NOT accidentally kill a loved one due to choices I make) #2, even if the stat were true, and it would be safer to not have a gun than to have a gun, It's an issue of persona freedom. It is not the state's right to decide what hobbies and activities of mine are too risky. It is my right.
I have a hard time understanding what you are saying in your posts. Are you a native english speaker? Please take a bit more time to compose or edit what you write. I don't want to come off as a grammar nazi, my own writing is far from perfect, but yours is at the point where there is a failure to communicate, at least with me. This may also be due to the use of sarcasm. Remember, sarcasm does not translate well on the internet, and in a messy sentence to beginwith, I find it get lost entirely.
That said, there are a few problems with your info.
There are more developed countries than you include statistics for. Out of say 50 countries, you compare gun rates for just 5. Why these 5? Why don't you include countries like switzerland with extremely high gun access but low child death?
You can make anything you want sound good by picking data.
A good example showing how complex the gun-crime-death-accident issue is can be illustrated by some examples of US states.
Hawaii has the harshest gun laws of any US state, and has the lowest per capita instances of accidental gun death, gun crime, etc etc. Yet the area thast has even harsher gun laws, Washington DC, has higher gun crime and gun death figures than any other state. Clearly just gun regs don't impact gun crime figures.
You would be correct in pointing out that Hawaii is an island, it is hard to get illegal guns in, whereas DC you can drive guns into it from places where it is easier to get guns. Then take a look at Montana and Alaska, they are the 2nd and 3rd lowest per capita in those very same gun crime and gun accident catagories yet they are both known for having very few gun restriction laws, plus they are just as easy to smuggle guns into as DC is.
Guns and how they relate to crime and accident is a very complex issue. What it boils down to for me is two things. #1, I have no (or very little) control on how a gun is used against me to do violence, but I have total control on how a gun I use posess is used either for voilence or accident. (Hence I can ignore statments like 'you are more likely to accidentally kill a loved one than an intruder with your gun' because I will NOT accidentally kill a loved one due to choices I make) #2, even if the stat were true, and it would be safer to not have a gun than to have a gun, It's an issue of persona freedom. It is not the state's right to decide what hobbies and activities of mine are too risky. It is my right.
BHPshooter
Member
You may not know it, but you couldn't be further from the truth.
Are you familiar with Isoroku Yamamoto? He's the Japanese Commander who planned the attack at Pearl Harbor.
At the time that he was charged with attacking America, the Japanese misconception of Americans was that we were a lazy people, concerned only with making ourselves as comfortable as possible. Yamamoto, who was educated in America, told them that this was quite untrue. Now, you probably already know about how he planned the attack, but warned that they were going to "awaken a sleeping giant."
What you probably don't know is that they initially wanted to invade America. Yamamoto told them that an invasion of America was impossible, because "there is a gun behind every blade of grass."
The simple fact that America has guns -- a LOT of guns -- has saved us from terrible things.
Another historical point to keep in mind: At the time of the American Revolution, Jimbob Farmer was better armed than a British Regular.
The British, with their smoothbore "Brown Bess" musket, could only expect mediocre accuracy, and they generally achieved effectiveness only through the rules of engagement at the time (meaning Group A lines up across a field from Group B).
But American farmers and frontiersmen, with their rifled Pennsylvania or Kentucky rifles (among others), could shoot accurately and effectively much farther than the Redcoats could. This was arguably the birth of (effective) Guerilla Warfare.
And here's the kicker: The mess all started at Concord and Lexington when the British showed up to confiscate their guns, powder, and shot.
That's enough food for thought to comprise a whole meal.
Wes
- Status
Similar threads
