Toddler accidentally shoots woman dead in Idaho Walmart

by nicolaou 101 Replies latest social current

  • AndDontCallMeShirley
    AndDontCallMeShirley

    Isn't it funny how, after any shooting death, gun owners paint themselves as the 'real victims'.

    Where has this been said by anyone in this discussion? Just curious. 

     

     I think mandatory insurance and consequences if your gun is used in a crime. Make gun owners responsible or accountable.

    If "culture" and "society" are the issue, as you claim, how does insurance solve the problem? I hate to point out the elephant in the room, but there ARE consequences for using a gun in a crime: it is the hundreds of laws the USA already has on the books.

    Automobile insurance is mandatory in the USA, yet it doesn't prevent people from driving drunk. Just like ownership of firearms, if a driver abuses their privilege to drive, they go to jail. 

     

    Incidentally, the two articles little_socrates posted links to will not only address your claims but also show how baseless most of the claims made here really are. Something tells me they won't be read, however.

  • JeffT
    JeffT

    Has anybody ever thought of ways of dealing with this besides banning guns?

    In my opinion Simon is on the right track,  if we follow that train of thought to its conclusion.  Requiring insurance is not a burden.  I've got a one million dollar umbrella policy that (bundled with my home and auto insurance) costs $12 a month.  We already license gun owners who hunt and carry concealed weapons.  Why not license them all?

    How about universal safety training?  We teach junior high school kids to put condoms on bananas so nobody gets hurt if a loaded penis goes off, why not teach them how to handle a gun?  I've been around guns my entire life.  I know how to check the safety and determine if a gun is loaded.  I also know not to point it at anything I don't plan on shooting.  These points got beat into my head so long ago and so emphatically they are now automatic.  That kind of training might have prevented this tragedy.  

    There is a problem with gun culture in this country.  That culture is located in our cities, twelve of which are responsible for one quarter of all gun deaths.  But we don't talk about that, I guess because its politically incorrect.  

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/america-doesnt-have-a-gun-problem-it-has-a-gang-problem/ 

    Simon, you're point about Canada having lots of guns and far fewer deaths actually proves the point a lot of us are trying to make.  Its not the guns, its the people.  

  • AndDontCallMeShirley
    AndDontCallMeShirley

    You make some excellent points, Jeff. To add to your comment: Simon, you're point about Canada having lots of guns and far fewer deaths actually proves the point a lot of us are trying to make.  Its not the guns, its the people.

     

     

    In 10 states, more than 8 percent of adults hold concealed carry permits, and all are among the states with the lowest crime rates... We found that the size of the drop [in crime] is directly related to the percentage of the population with permits,"

    ... A 2007 Harvard Study entitled "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?" looks at figures for "intentional deaths" throughout continental Europe and compares them with the United States to show that more gun control does not necessarily lead to lower death rates or violent crime. The study concludes that the "the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths" is wrong.

    ...  The study then examined instances of intentional deaths by looking at the U.S. and comparing them to Continental Europe. Despite assertions that the United States is the most violent nation in the world by anti-gun groups, the U.S. came in seventh behind Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, and the Ukraine in murders. In suicides, the U.S. ranked 22.  

    The authors of the study concluded that gun opponents should "at the very least [be able] to show a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that impose stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide)." But noted in its intense study, "those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared around the world."

    ... In light of all this information, if government officials truly desire to reduce murder rates and keep the population, especially children, safer, they should encourage gun ownership by responsible, law abiding citizens rather than try to restrict access to firearms. After all, making something illegal doesn't make it go away, but simply drives it into the hands of criminals. Such is the case with drugs in this country currently, and was the case with alcohol during Prohibition.

    Governments throughout history have restricted people's access to weapons for the primary purpose of controlling the population. The most oppressive governments are the ones that prevent the "masses" from arming themselves. This is precisely why the Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, preventing the federal government from infringing on the people's natural right to defend themselves

     

  • little_Socrates
    little_Socrates

    Simon I whole hardheartedly agree that gun owners need to be held responsible.   The question is how would it have prevented this tragedy?  She paid the highest price for her decisions with her life.   Unfortunately the toddlers life is also messed up and that is very sad.


    Let me ask again short of an outright ban what gun control measures would have prevented this case?

  • Simon
    Simon
    Where has this been said by anyone in this discussion? Just curious.

    It's the feeling some try to give - to read some comments you'd think gun owners were the real victims. The conversation always seems to be diverted into that.

    Automobile insurance is mandatory in the USA, yet it doesn't prevent people from driving drunk. Just like ownership of firearms, if a driver abuses their privilege to drive, they go to jail. 

    Ah, the old "unless laws stop 100% of crimes it's not worth bothering" claim. Do we think driving on the roads would be a) better or b) a bloodbath if the laws weren't there to protect people? Sorry, I think it's a total non-argument intended to distract attention. Laws do work. Why wouldn't responsible gun owners want more gun control laws?

    The point of having insurance is to change behaviour and apply some accountability. If someone is shot with your gun then you have some responsibility. Force people to secure their weapons and not carry them round while not violating anyone's rights - you are free to carry your gun or leave it lying around on the kitchen table. If someone else is killed because if your stupid then their family can sue you. So you need to get insurance to protect yourself against that - and the insurance premium will depend on whether you have a secured cabinet, have attended training, have a good history etc... Just because you have the right to something doesn't mean it should be cost free - why should society have to foot the bill?

    It works for automobiles way better than nothing.

    BTW: Could you consider not using red for quotes - it's a little too intense.

  • little_Socrates
    little_Socrates

    The united states is much safer than it appears to be.   Yes we do have a gang problem.   The majority of gun crimes are related to this.   However almost half of all gun crimes happen in just 5 cities, LA Chi NY Philadelphia and HOU.


    If you have no associations with gangs and you don't happen to live in those 5 cities you are safer than you are in the majority of the developed world.   Yes in certain specific places gun crime is very high but in the vast majority of the country you are VERY safe.

  • Simon
    Simon
    Its not the guns, its the people.

    I don't think one person suggests that guns kill people on their own.

    The reality is that it's a combination of people and guns (and bullets). If guns are less accessible then there are fewer incidents of accidental shooting, loss-of-temper killings and suicides. Guns are very good at killing - that's what they are designed for after all.

    Why would better control of guns and licensing of them be objectionable to any responsible owner?

    As a responsible drivers I'm damn glad that the vast majority of other people on the road are also licensed and controlled and don't mind the slight inconvenience I have to go through for the increased safety that results from it.

    Why don't "alleged" responsible gun owners want gun owners to have to be responsible?

  • little_Socrates
    little_Socrates

    For comparison sake lets compare causes of preventable death....

    126,000 people die every year from various injuries

    106,000 people die from bad medicine reactions

    80,000 people die from hospital acquired infections

    36,000 people die from poisoning

    33,000 people die from traffic accidents

    27,000 people die from falls

    20,000 people die from hospital errors

    10-14,000 people die from gun related homicide

    Where is the called to ban Doctors?  Medicine?  Cars? Ladders? Poison?   All of them kill more people every year than guns.

  • AndDontCallMeShirley
    AndDontCallMeShirley

    It's the feeling some try to give

    A "feeling" would be wholly your own, would it not? Feelings do not constitute data nor hard/implied arguments attributed to someone else. 

     Ah, the old "unless laws stop 100% of crimes it's not worth bothering" claim.

    I didn't say this, you missed my point completely.

    What I took from your previous comment is you believe that if gun owners are required to have insurance then suddenly problems go away. Granted, perhaps it would make a positive difference somehow, I don't know, but implying it is a panacea to controlling accidents or stupidity is simply wrong. I used the example of auto insurance to illustrate that requiring a person to have insurance does not guarantee they still won't do something stupid while driving, like driving intoxicated. 

     It works for automobiles way better than nothing.

    I completely agree, and if it could be demonstrated as making a positive impact regarding gun safety I'd support it 100%. 

     BTW: Could you consider not using red for quotes - it's a little too intense.

    Sorry. The "quote" function has not been working for me since the new format went online and I thought red was the next best alternative to differentiating a quote from my comments. 

  • AndDontCallMeShirley
    AndDontCallMeShirley

    @ Simon: Why wouldn't responsible gun owners want more gun control laws?

    Actually they do:

    For all the claims of politicians that they represent the public, the truth is that they basically don’t. For every "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" type sticking up for the little guy, there are about two hundred others doing their best to trample him into the ground.

    Case in point: at least fifty-four percent of Americans support very strict gun laws, with that number rising to a whopping ninety-one percent (LINK 6) when it comes to common-sense stuff like required background checks. You may recognize this as the same common-sense policy Congress recently shot down in what can only be assumed was an effort to become even more unpopular.

    This support for gun control, by the way, is pretty bipartisan: even with controversial stuff like reinstating the assault weapons ban, roughly half of Republicans are in favor, along with a majority of Democrats and Independents. In other words, people are largely pro-gun controlit’s the politicians who aren’t.

    http://listverse.com/2013/04/21/10-arguments-for-gun-control/

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit