Toddler Shoots and Kills Mother

[Divitaen]

So what if cars have greater mass? Lethality is still less, plus range and speed is also less. Those things make a bigger impact on likelihood of killing you.

The nuke argument is a strawman? How? Please explain it to me, because as far as I can see, the typical pro-gun argument for why "it is unfair to blame guns" applies to explosives, tanks and nukes, so if you can draw me a moral or philosophical distinction, then I will drop the point.

Nukes and tanks are offensive weapons, explosives are already heavily regulated, and the whole argument always pops up in gun control debates. Mainly because, the gun-control proponents have nor real, legitimate or reasonable argument.

And guns aren't offensive weapons? What makes tanks more offensive than guns? Come on....how is that a "real, legitimate or reasonable argument???" Both fire at other people, so by definition aren't both offensive weapons?

As for explosives being heavily regulated, that's exactly the point. We heavily regulate explosives for their destructive capacity, so why not guns?

[Master Shake]

You can't defend your house with a nuke. You'd blow up your house so what is the point using it to defend yourself?

Also guns didn't produce the MAD theory...

We didn't start making nukes because the Russians had more guns then us...

Actually, you did...

You may of had a larger army, but you must admit it was ill equipped when it came to arms...Hell I remember reading that soldiers would have to loot their fallen comrades bodies for ammo or even another gun if they didn't have one.

[Sahrani South]

I think this could have been prevented if gun safety would already be teached to young kids, so they know how to handle a gun. Also the mother could be at fault here as she may left the safety switch off. But it is a shame that this tragic accident is used by the anti-gun lobby to further their agenda.

[Divitaen]

Well, indeed they do act as a deterrent, if that's what you're referring to.

As long as nobody starts comparing guns and cars again I'm good, really. It's a stupid and old argument that should have been put aside a long time ago in favor of more in-depth discussion.

Same with the "if guns then why not nukes" argument.

That's true, the comparison between guns and nukes is stupid. I brought it up as a parallel to your comparison between cars and guns. Both are stupid parallels.

[Master Shake]

What makes tanks more offensive than guns?

A tank, when out of ammo, could run you over...

[The Boliviaric Republic]

Nope.

I've noticed that there's always someone who pleads that this not be a political thing.

Generally these people are people who are against gun control.

That's true

[Imperializt Russia]

An individual citizen cannot meaningfully defend themselves, their family or their property from one or more aggressors with a tank. The best use they will have for it is as an impromptu and horribly inefficient panic room.

A military force can use a tank formation to defend the remainder of the formation. Because they're doing different things.

For much the same reason as my first sentence, one cannot defend themselves with a high-explosive device or nuclear device. The use of force is inefficient as fuck, wholly disproportionate and incapable of providing a meaningful local defence against aggressors in a civil sense.

[Esternial]

Nukes and tanks are offensive weapons, explosives are already heavily regulated, and the whole argument always pops up in gun control debates. Mainly because, the gun-control proponents have nor real, legitimate or reasonable argument.

And guns aren't offensive weapons? What makes tanks more offensive than guns? Come on....how is that a "real, legitimate or reasonable argument???" Both fire at other people, so by definition aren't both offensive weapons?

As for explosives being heavily regulated, that's exactly the point. We heavily regulate explosives for their destructive capacity, so why not guns?

I don't think tanks and guns can be so easily compared. A civilian can surely not use a tank, due its greater destructive capacity, while a gun is a more subtle deterrent and means of self-defense.

It's a different gradation/class, which is an important distinction to make.

What makes tanks more offensive than guns?

A tank, when out of ammo, could run you over...

The size of the weapon and the size of the shell it uses alone is enough to highlight how it's more offensive. Tanks are by far more threatening as well, whereas guns are - as I said above - a more subtle deterrent.

[Divitaen]

An individual citizen cannot meaningfully defend themselves, their family or their property from one or more aggressors with a tank. The best use they will have for it is as an impromptu and horribly inefficient panic room.

A military force can use a tank formation to defend the remainder of the formation. Because they're doing different things.

For much the same reason as my first sentence, one cannot defend themselves with a high-explosive device or nuclear device. The use of force is inefficient as fuck, wholly disproportionate and incapable of providing a meaningful local defence against aggressors in a civil sense.

Yes, ok so you're main point is that the mechanism of these items are different from guns, therefore it is fair to treat them differently.

Great, that's exactly how it is between guns and cars. Tanks and explosives are significantly more destructive than guns, and in the same way, guns are significantly more destructive than cars.

[Esternial]

An individual citizen cannot meaningfully defend themselves, their family or their property from one or more aggressors with a tank. The best use they will have for it is as an impromptu and horribly inefficient panic room.

A military force can use a tank formation to defend the remainder of the formation. Because they're doing different things.

For much the same reason as my first sentence, one cannot defend themselves with a high-explosive device or nuclear device. The use of force is inefficient as fuck, wholly disproportionate and incapable of providing a meaningful local defence against aggressors in a civil sense.

Yes, ok so you're main point is that the mechanism of these items are different from guns, therefore it is fair to treat them differently.

Great, that's exactly how it is between guns and cars. Tanks and explosives are significantly more destructive than guns, and in the same way, guns are significantly more destructive than cars.

Of course it is.

So can we please drop the "guns, cars and tanks" branch of this argument?

[Big Jim P]

I think this could have been prevented if gun safety would already be teached to young kids, so they know how to handle a gun. Also the mother could be at fault here as she may left the safety switch off. But it is a shame that this tragic accident is used by the anti-gun lobby to further their agenda.

Even by my standards, two years old is too young.

[Big Jim P]

Nukes and tanks are offensive weapons, explosives are already heavily regulated, and the whole argument always pops up in gun control debates. Mainly because, the gun-control proponents have nor real, legitimate or reasonable argument.

And guns aren't offensive weapons? What makes tanks more offensive than guns? Come on....how is that a "real, legitimate or reasonable argument???" Both fire at other people, so by definition aren't both offensive weapons?

As for explosives being heavily regulated, that's exactly the point. We heavily regulate explosives for their destructive capacity, so why not guns?

Guns are already regulated as well.

[Imperializt Russia]

An individual citizen cannot meaningfully defend themselves, their family or their property from one or more aggressors with a tank. The best use they will have for it is as an impromptu and horribly inefficient panic room.

A military force can use a tank formation to defend the remainder of the formation. Because they're doing different things.

For much the same reason as my first sentence, one cannot defend themselves with a high-explosive device or nuclear device. The use of force is inefficient as fuck, wholly disproportionate and incapable of providing a meaningful local defence against aggressors in a civil sense.

Yes, ok so you're main point is that the mechanism of these items are different from guns, therefore it is fair to treat them differently.

Great, that's exactly how it is between guns and cars. Tanks and explosives are significantly more destructive than guns, and in the same way, guns are significantly more destructive than cars.

I only use the car "comparison" to show how few deaths by comparison are caused. If we take all deaths as result of cars and all deaths as result of firearms, cars are slightly ahead. Remove intentional homicide and suicide, firearm deaths fall dramatically to fractions of percentage points of the total, while car deaths probably don't fall much at all.

I would argue cars are far more abused and held more complacently than firearms are, as well. According to the CDC, there are one hundred million self-reported instances of drinking and driving in the US each year, which would equate roughly to every other car driver in the US drinking and driving once a year. I would further argue that driving a motor vehicle drunk on public roads is a far greater risk than six guys drinking with shotguns.

They're not direct comparisons. They're illustrative only.

[Big Jim P]

I tend to save my best arguments for those who bring theirs.

I'd actually like to hear them.

When someone makes a legitimate argument for more gun control I will bring them.

Actually, I have brought them, but they get ignored. So be it.

[Esternial]

I'd actually like to hear them.

When someone makes a legitimate argument for more gun control I will bring them.

Actually, I have brought them, but they get ignored. So be it.

I'm personally on the fence on all this.

Can you give me a linky?

[Big Jim P]

Yes, ok so you're main point is that the mechanism of these items are different from guns, therefore it is fair to treat them differently.

Great, that's exactly how it is between guns and cars. Tanks and explosives are significantly more destructive than guns, and in the same way, guns are significantly more destructive than cars.

I only use the car "comparison" to show how few deaths by comparison are caused. If we take all deaths as result of cars and all deaths as result of firearms, cars are slightly ahead. Remove intentional homicide and suicide, firearm deaths fall dramatically to fractions of percentage points of the total, while car deaths probably don't fall much at all.

I would argue cars are far more abused and held more complacently than firearms are, as well. According to the CDC, there are one hundred million self-reported instances of drinking and driving in the US each year, which would equate roughly to every other car driver in the US drinking and driving once a year. I would further argue that driving a motor vehicle drunk on public roads is a far greater risk than six guys drinking with shotguns.

They're not direct comparisons. They're illustrative only.

591 accidental gun deaths in 2011. They are extremely rare. Even adding in suicides and homicides they remain very rare.

[Sahrani South]

This accident is like the mother tripped over the toddler and fell down the stairs...would you then want to ban stairs? Or toddlers? Then why do the liberals want to take advantage of this accident and make more gun regulation?

Guns are a sign of progress towards a more peaceful society. Why you ask:

Before guns, the guy with the biggest strength won. With guns, every one has a fair chance of losing, so less people ware willing to attack anyone.

[Imperializt Russia]

This accident is like the mother tripped over the toddler and fell down the stairs...would you then want to ban stairs? Or toddlers? Then why do the liberals want to take advantage of this accident and make more gun regulation?

Guns are a sign of progress towards a more peaceful society. Why you ask:

Before guns, the guy with the biggest strength won. With guns, every one has a fair chance of losing, so less people ware willing to attack anyone.

Surely "liberals" are not in favour of further regulation.

[Sahrani South]

This accident is like the mother tripped over the toddler and fell down the stairs...would you then want to ban stairs? Or toddlers? Then why do the liberals want to take advantage of this accident and make more gun regulation?

Guns are a sign of progress towards a more peaceful society. Why you ask:

Before guns, the guy with the biggest strength won. With guns, every one has a fair chance of losing, so less people ware willing to attack anyone.

Surely "liberals" are not in favour of further regulation.

Liberals meaning US liberals who are in fact in favour of LESS liberty.

[Esternial]

This accident is like the mother tripped over the toddler and fell down the stairs...would you then want to ban stairs? Or toddlers? Then why do the liberals want to take advantage of this accident and make more gun regulation?

Guns are a sign of progress towards a more peaceful society. Why you ask:

Before guns, the guy with the biggest strength won. With guns, every one has a fair chance of losing, so less people ware willing to attack anyone.

Somehow, Most of Europe seems to degree with you on that.

Guns are not a sign of progress towards a more peaceful society. They've been a part of American society for awhile now and are not providing much change in either direction.

No need to demonize guns, but revering them as more than what they are is pointless.

[Big Jim P]

When someone makes a legitimate argument for more gun control I will bring them.

Actually, I have brought them, but they get ignored. So be it.

I'm personally on the fence on all this.

Can you give me a linky?

Back a few pages I pointed out the rarity of homicides, suicides and accidents relative to the number of guns, and gun owners, the benefits of gun ownership and how that outweighs the cost for those rare occurrences, and how the very rarity of these occurrences makes any additional regulation very cost-ineffective.

Pretty much the same thing I point out in every gun-control thread so far.

[Divitaen]

I'm personally on the fence on all this.

Can you give me a linky?

Back a few pages I pointed out the rarity of homicides, suicides and accidents relative to the number of guns, and gun owners, the benefits of gun ownership and how that outweighs the cost for those rare occurrences, and how the very rarity of these occurrences makes any additional regulation very cost-ineffective.

Pretty much the same thing I point out in every gun-control thread so far.

Not exactly a rarity when you compare the gun homicide rate in the US to every other country that has enacted gun control laws. Or the gun homicide rates between states.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

[Esternial]

I'm personally on the fence on all this.

Can you give me a linky?

Back a few pages I pointed out the rarity of homicides, suicides and accidents relative to the number of guns, and gun owners, the benefits of gun ownership and how that outweighs the cost for those rare occurrences, and how the very rarity of these occurrences makes any additional regulation very cost-ineffective.

Pretty much the same thing I point out in every gun-control thread so far.

Ah, okey, I see.

Well, I personally believe gun control in America is a lost cause because of the overall mentality. There are civilians in the U.S. that think they need guns to feel safe, which is a sad reality.

Had they been more strictly regulated a long time ago, then maybe people would think differently about them. Maybe things would be somewhat similar as they are in my country.

A question: Would you accept/support stricter gun regulations if they followed after a change in society overall, reducing the need for guns for self-defense (e.g. better law enforcement, less crime, overall greater sense of personal safety and trust in the police, ...)?

[Divitaen]

Back a few pages I pointed out the rarity of homicides, suicides and accidents relative to the number of guns, and gun owners, the benefits of gun ownership and how that outweighs the cost for those rare occurrences, and how the very rarity of these occurrences makes any additional regulation very cost-ineffective.

Pretty much the same thing I point out in every gun-control thread so far.

Ah, okey, I see.

Well, I personally believe gun control in America is a lost cause because of the overall mentality. There are civilians in the U.S. that think they need guns to feel safe, which is a sad reality.

Had they been more strictly regulated a long time ago, then maybe people would think differently about them. Maybe things would be somewhat similar as they are in my country.

A question: Would you accept/support stricter gun regulations if they followed after a change in society overall, reducing the need for guns for self-defense (e.g. better law enforcement, less crime, overall greater sense of personal safety and trust in the police, ...)?

The irony is guns don't make you safer. Gun ownership in a home has been linked to higher rates of homicide and suicide for occupants, as well as accidental shootings. Women are also in increased risk of facing death from an intimate partner. Guns at home are 18 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. So much for guns for self-defense.

[Arvenia]

OMG, a toddler killed an adult! That was bizarre! I never knew those bizarre news before! Shit, this is mindfuck!