Yay, GUNS!

[MonDie]

Below are data the wsj published on gun sales in the first three months of the year from 1998 to present.

 

 

 

IMG URL

3-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2013/04/367x524xGun-Sales-copy.jpg.pagespeed.ic.A-VtgBaydi.jpg

 

Here's where the wsj used the image, which actually came from fbi.gov. As you can see, the FBI now has April's number, and it has nearly returned to normal. NOTE: Before the edit, I thought the author intentionally excluded the April cloumn to decieve us.

Also, it's actually the number of background checks, which is assumed to reflect the number of sales.

 

We might as well carry through with gun law reforms since we have already gotten everyone riled up. It would be quite a dissapointment if gun sales were spiked for nothing.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[john5746]

A serious, Federally `enforced attempt at a level of gun control that would have prevented that killing might set off civil war in the US.

 

And it would be justified.

Maybe I shouldn't have posted it in this thread, I wasn't really thinking about gun control when I did it. Some people just shouldn't have kids.

 

But, thinking about it, really? You can't think of anything reasonable that might at least prevent similar situations?

 

There are age limits for possession of handguns and in certain states for possession of long guns(Kentucky isn't one). Sure, people will break the law, but it might make some at least think about it. I mean, they could give the kids alcohol or give them a car and let them drive, but they would be breaking the law.

 

You don't have to take a specific situation and think of the 100% solution for that situation, then cry about it.

 

Seriously, a child has been killed, another scared for life any you are ready for Civil War if any suggestion for a solution is provided?

Edited May 2, 2013 by john5746

[John Cuthber]

Overtone,

"A serious, Federally `enforced attempt at a level of gun control that would have prevented that killing might set off civil war in the US.

And it would be justified."

Seriously?

Educating people about the risks of guns so that they realise that they don't need them or want them round the house should lead to a civil war?

 

What about a ban on giving them to 5 year olds?

Is that really grounds to star ta civil war?

Or were you just not thinking very hard?

[waitforufo]

Make the reforms involve education rather than restriction, which will inevitably lead to more restrictions being enforced by an educated public. Covert yet effective.

 

Education? Here you go.

 

http://home.nra.org/directory/list/education-and-training-category

[john5746]

Learning Gun Safety is a good idea, but giving money to an organization that supports terrorism is not a good idea.

[jp255]

Overtone,

"A serious, Federally `enforced attempt at a level of gun control that would have prevented that killing might set off civil war in the US.

 

And it would be justified."

Seriously?

Educating people about the risks of guns so that they realise that they don't need them or want them round the house should lead to a civil war?

 

What about a ban on giving them to 5 year olds?

Is that really grounds to star ta civil war?

Or were you just not thinking very hard?

I think the point overtone was trying to make, was that an intervention, that would prevent such an incident from ever occuring, could be met with a substantial amount of resistance.

 

How easy is it to reduce the liklihood of such incidents (on a national scale) to 0? Will education do this? will a ban for giving guns to children do this?

 

Unfortunately, incidents like these are a possibility. Altering that possibility to 0 will require a fair amount of gun control. It isn't wise to use this one incident as a justification for major gun control reform, though the frequency of incidents of a similar nature would be a better impetus. Overtone highlighted that point drawing comparison to other incidents, like lawn mower deaths, and it is a reasonable point. If a child dies from a lawn mower should there be stricter lawn mower control?

 

One should accept that incidents like these are possible when the gun control is not at a level where it is reasonable to say "a 5 year old child wont get his/her hands on a gun". Surely the arguments should be surrounding the issue "what is an acceptable level of gun deaths caused by children?", because let's face it, reducing the probability of a child getting his/her hands on a gun to 0 is pretty hard.

 

I do disagree with overtone's comment, "it would be justified". Civil war is not the kind of public response I'd hope for. I'm not even sure how I could reasonably justify civil war.

Edited May 3, 2013 by jp255

[waitforufo]

Learning Gun Safety is a good idea, but giving money to an organization that supports terrorism is not a good idea.

Do you also believe that the ACLU supports terrorism? They go out of their way to make sure that people with mental health problems are roaming the streets. Do you feel the same way about the media? They glorify violence and make heroes out of criminals in their story lines.

[john5746]

If a child dies from a lawn mower should there be stricter lawn mower control?

If there are lawn mowers being marketed for children and children end up mowing each other to death, then yeah a law outlawing a lawn mower for children would be a good idea.

 

This wasn't dad's gun on the mantel. This was the boy's gun, which is marketed to him like a toy. He had every right to feel like he should be able to pick it up.

Edited May 3, 2013 by john5746

[jp255]

If there are lawn mowers being marketed for children and children end up mowing each other to death, then yeah a law outlawing a lawn mower for children would be a good idea.

 

This wasn't dad's gun on the mantel. This was the boy's gun, which is marketed to him like a toy. He had every right to feel like he should be able to pick it up.

I didn't know toy guns were marketed in such a way, "point at another human being, and pull the trigger". Where is that written on the packet?

 

Did the child think it was a toy anyway?

Edited May 3, 2013 by jp255

[swansont]

Unfortunately, incidents like these are a possibility. Altering that possibility to 0 will require a fair amount of gun control. It isn't wise to use this one incident as a justification for major gun control reform, though the frequency of incidents of a similar nature would be a better impetus. Overtone highlighted that point drawing comparison to other incidents, like lawn mower deaths, and it is a reasonable point. If a child dies from a lawn mower should there be stricter lawn mower control?

 

Lawn mowers have to have reasonable safety features to guard against accidental injury or death. Such "lawn mower control" has been in place for a while.

 

[John Cuthber]

I didn't know toy guns were marketed in such a way, "point at another human being, and pull the trigger". Where is that written on the packet?

 

Did the child think it was a toy anyway?

Unless it's actually your job to shoot things, many adult's guns are toys too.

[overtone]

 

Educating people about the risks of guns so that they realise that

they don't need them or want them round the house should lead to a civil

war?

Nobody is talking about education.

 

What about a ban on giving them to 5 year olds?

 

Is that really grounds to star ta civil war?

Or were you just not thinking very hard?

Imagine for a sec what would be involved in a Federal enforcement of whatever law you have in mind, sufficient to actually prevent the situation.

 

 

Sure, people will break the law, but it might make some at least think

about it. I mean, they could give the kids alcohol or give them a car

and let them drive, but they would be breaking the law.

Yes, that is breaking the law. And in countries where such common practice isn't breaking the law, it doesn't have the consequences it has in the US.

 

Imagine a Federal enforcement effort sufficient to actually prevent people from giving their kids alcohol, for example.

 

 

Lawn mowers have to have reasonable safety features to guard against accidental injury or death

And, being reasonable, they don't prevent the numerous accidental injuries or even occasional death.

 

It would take an unreasonable law, and onerously intrusive enforcement, to do that.

[swansont]

And, being reasonable, they don't prevent the numerous accidental injuries or even occasional death.

 

Can you quantify the number of injuries and deaths that regulation has prevented?

 

It would take an unreasonable law, and onerously intrusive enforcement, to do that.

 

If you're suggesting that the only acceptable number is zero, then yes, but that's not a fair analogy for gun control. I don't think anyone is suggesting we can reduce gun deaths to zero. The sad fact is that the type of legislation being discussed and shot down would barely cause a noticeable dip in gun deaths if it passed.

[John Cuthber]

Make the reforms involve education rather than restriction, which will inevitably lead to more restrictions being enforced by an educated public.

 

 

Nobody is talking about education.

I think you will find that they are.

[jp255]

Can you quantify the number of injuries and deaths that regulation has prevented?

 

 

If you're suggesting that the only acceptable number is zero, then yes, but that's not a fair analogy for gun control. I don't think anyone is suggesting we can reduce gun deaths to zero. The sad fact is that the type of legislation being discussed and shot down would barely cause a noticeable dip in gun deaths if it passed.

That is the part of the point overtone was trying to make imo. If you accept that we cannot reduce the deaths to 0, then what was the point of the post describing a single incident involving child gun deaths? as a single incident it only shows that children killing other children with guns is a possibility, but that should already be known to be a possibility. So it is a pointless post.

 

Perhaps a post which detailed the overall gun deaths of children killing children would have been more useful.

 

If I made the hypothetical scenario. "A child dies from a lawn mower, despite the safety features swasont pointed out", should we then seek to implement a national education program about lawn mowers?.

[swansont]

That is the part of the point overtone was trying to make imo. If you accept that we cannot reduce the deaths to 0, then what was the point of the post describing a single incident involving child gun deaths? as a single incident it only shows that children killing other children with guns is a possibility, but that should already be known to be a possibility. So it is a pointless post.

 

Perhaps a post which detailed the overall gun deaths of children killing children would have been more useful.

 

If I made the hypothetical scenario. "A child dies from a lawn mower, despite the safety features swasont pointed out", should we then seek to implement a national education program about lawn mowers?.

 

I think the point about the child gun death was that it's an egregious example of the gun culture run amok. Analogous to a lawnmower with no safety features whatsoever. At least with a lawnmower you can sue the manufacturer if there is negligence in the safety features, but if a person uses a gun to kill someone, the gun has been used for a thing it was designed to do.

[doG]

I think the point about the child gun death was that it's an egregious example of the gun culture run amok. Analogous to a lawnmower with no safety features whatsoever. At least with a lawnmower you can sue the manufacturer if there is negligence in the safety features, but if a person uses a gun to kill someone, the gun has been used for a thing it was designed to do.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that analogy. Just because a hammer was could be used to kill someone doesn't mean you could sue the hammer manufacturer for a lack of safety features.

 

There is certainly negligence on someone's part in every child gun death but it is not one of the gun manufacturer. All guns have a safety position and even that is unnecessary with unloaded guns. When someone leaves a loaded gun, or a gun and the required ammunition, accessible to a child then it is their negligence that is responsible, not the manufacturer's.

 

I do not particularly believe any gun manufacturer designs their civilian products to be used to commit murder, manslaughter or accidental death of anyone. They design them primarily for defense and hunting purposes. They design them with safety features to prevent accidents. That ignorant people circumvent and/or ignore those features is not their fault.

 

Here's an analogy for you. Pill bottle manufacturers make containers that can be closed one way to childproof the contents or another that is not. The pharmacist fills a bottle with medicine that is deadly to children and closes the bottle using the childproof configuration for safety. The consumer picks up their medicine at the pharmacy, takes it home and closes it the other way because it's more convenient. A child finds it, consumes the content and dies. Is it the fault of the bottle manufacturer that their child safety feature was intentionally ignored or circumvented by the end user? Like the gun manufacturer, they specifically design their product with features to prevent such accidents. Unfortunately neither has the ability to design products that prevent misuse of their products through negligence, be it intentional or accidental.

 

Unfortunately, incidents like these are a possibility. Altering that possibility to 0 will require a fair amount of gun control.

Not necessarily. These incidents really are intolerable and the responsible adult that enabled it should be held wholly responsible and accountable. These incidents are effectively negligent homicide and/or manslaughter. Severe penalties should be levied and publicized to the point that the general public learns of the monumental responsibility expected of gun owners.....i,e. "keep them safe or else!"

[John Cuthber]

You seem to have missed the point.

If someone uses a gun to kill my brother I can't sue the manufacturer on behalf of my brother's estate because the gun did exactly what it was designed, built and intended to do.

If a lawnmower kills my brother then I can sue because a lawnmower should not be built to kill people.

There really is something different about guns (and cigarettes) compared to practically any other product.

 

If you use them "properly" for their design purpose, they kill people.

 

Oddly the US seems to have practically banned the one that kills the user, but not the one that kills other people.

 

We may disagree on that but perhaps we can agree that the person who failed to supervise the kid should get prosecuted for manslaughter.

[swansont]

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that analogy. Just because a hammer was could be used to kill someone doesn't mean you could sue the hammer manufacturer for a lack of safety features.

 

That's not the example in play. You can sue a manufacturer if there is negligence in the safety features of products that results in accidental injury — ever notice all of the stickers on a ladder? Deliberately killing someone with a hammer is not an accident.

 

 

There is certainly negligence on someone's part in every child gun death but it is not one of the gun manufacturer. All guns have a safety position and even that is unnecessary with unloaded guns. When someone leaves a loaded gun, or a gun and the required ammunition, accessible to a child then it is their negligence that is responsible, not the manufacturer's.

 

I do not particularly believe any gun manufacturer designs their civilian products to be used to commit murder, manslaughter or accidental death of anyone. They design them primarily for defense and hunting purposes. They design them with safety features to prevent accidents. That ignorant people circumvent and/or ignore those features is not their fault.

 

Here's an analogy for you. Pill bottle manufacturers make containers that can be closed one way to childproof the contents or another that is not. The pharmacist fills a bottle with medicine that is deadly to children and closes the bottle using the childproof configuration for safety. The consumer picks up their medicine at the pharmacy, takes it home and closes it the other way because it's more convenient. A child finds it, consumes the content and dies. Is it the fault of the bottle manufacturer that their child safety feature was intentionally ignored or circumvented by the end user? Like the gun manufacturer, they specifically design their product with features to prevent such accidents. Unfortunately neither has the ability to design products that prevent misuse of their products through negligence, be it intentional or accidental.

 

A gun death is generally not the result of circumventing safety features or an unforeseen misuse.

[jp255]

I think the point about the child gun death was that it's an egregious example of the gun culture run amok. Analogous to a lawnmower with no safety features whatsoever. At least with a lawnmower you can sue the manufacturer if there is negligence in the safety features, but if a person uses a gun to kill someone, the gun has been used for a thing it was designed to do.

I'd think that how someone intends to use a gun or lawn mower matters more than what it was designed for. Whilst a gun was designed to kill, was the 5 year old child intending to kill the 2 year old? it could be that that was not the goal. There can be gun accidents, just like there can be lawn mower accidents. The design of the gun can lead to additional deaths that were not intentional, and the design of the lawn mower can lead to the deaths of human beings that were not intentional.

 

If we know that next year it is very likely a large number of people will die from gunshots, shouldn't they just be as strictly regulated as in the UK? The decision not to ban/heavily restrict, when we know that some of these deaths may well have been prevented by such action, is reasonable? Shouldn't this lack of action be considered to be immoral?

[doG]

You seem to have missed the point.

Not at all. Swords are specifically designed to kill people and nothing else. They are not designed to hunt with even, just for killing people but you never hear of any advocacy to ban them.

 

It seems every time a gun is involved in a death, either accidentally or intentionally, the is a sector that wants to blame the gun and advocates further restrictions on my rights as a gun owner. Whenever a car, or a bathtub, or a sword, or a knife, or a ball bat or even a pressure cooker or any other thing is intentionally used to kill someone it is never blamed on the instrument of death but on the person that misused it.

 

Why should I suffer any consequences because of the unjust actions of someone else.

[jp255]

You seem to have missed the point.

If someone uses a gun to kill my brother I can't sue the manufacturer on behalf of my brother's estate because the gun did exactly what it was designed, built and intended to do.

If a lawnmower kills my brother then I can sue because a lawnmower should not be built to kill people.

There really is something different about guns (and cigarettes) compared to practically any other product.

 

If you use them "properly" for their design purpose, they kill people.

 

Oddly the US seems to have practically banned the one that kills the user, but not the one that kills other people.

 

We may disagree on that but perhaps we can agree that the person who failed to supervise the kid should get prosecuted for manslaughter.

So if a lawnmower is used to kill someone, you can sue the manufacturing company? The comparison is not the same, the gun scenario had intent to kill, the lawn mower scenario didn't. If it the gun scenario was proven to be an accident (safety somehow didn't work?), then i'd bet the manufacturer could be sued. I fail to see the relevance of intent of design.

 

Not at all. Swords are specifically designed to kill people and nothing else. They are not designed to hunt with even, just for killing people but you never hear of any advocacy to ban them.

 

It seems every time a gun is involved in a death, either accidentally or intentionally, the is a sector that wants to blame the gun and advocates further restrictions on my rights as a gun owner. Whenever a car, or a bathtub, or a sword, or a knife, or a ball bat or even a pressure cooker or any other thing is intentionally used to kill someone it is never blamed on the instrument of death but on the person that misused it.

 

Why should I suffer any consequences because of the unjust actions of someone else.

Is the enjoyment you get out of having your guns is worth more than the yearly gun related death rate?

[John Cuthber]

Not at all. Swords are specifically designed to kill people and nothing else. They are not designed to hunt with even, just for killing people but you never hear of any advocacy to ban them.

Guess again.

Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 prohibits having with you, in a public place of any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed, (including a folding pocket knife if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds 7.62cm/3 inches) (Archbold 24-125).

Section 139A of the 1988 Act extends the geographical scope of both of the above offences to school premises.

[doG]

So if a lawnmower is used to kill someone, you can sue the manufacturing company? The comparison is not the same, the gun scenario had intent to kill, the lawn mower scenario didn't. If it the gun scenario was proven to be an accident (safety somehow didn't work?), then i'd bet the manufacturer could be sued. I fail to see the relevance of intent of design.

 

Is the enjoyment you get out of having your guns is worth more than the yearly gun related death rate?

It's not about enjoyment. The founders intentionally added a personal right to keep and bear arms because standing armies of tyrannical governments are a threat to freedom and liberty. Why should my rights and those of the population at large be infringed as a result of the unjust and/or illegal actions of the few? I think the advocates of gun control owe me a guarantee of freedom from tyranny if they want to advocate that my rights of defense from it should be infringed in any way. When will the advocates of gun control advocate further restrictions on government?

 

Guess again.

Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 prohibits having with you, in a public place of any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed, (including a folding pocket knife if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds 7.62cm/3 inches) (Archbold 24-125).

Section 139A of the 1988 Act extends the geographical scope of both of the above offences to school premises.

So a knitting needle over 3 inches is prohibited in public places? Are the any advocates that my right to purchase a sword or a knitting needle should be prohibited just because it is prohibited in public places?

[jp255]

It's not about enjoyment. The founders intentionally added a personal right to keep and bear arms because standing armies of tyrannical governments are a threat to freedom and liberty. Why should my rights and those of the population at large be infringed as a result of the unjust and/or illegal actions of the few? I think the advocates of gun control owe me a guarantee of freedom from tyranny if they want to advocate that my rights of defense from it should be infringed in any way. When will the advocates of gun control advocate further restrictions on government?

 

So a knitting needle over 3 inches is prohibited in public places? Are the any advocates that my right to purchase a sword or a knitting needle should be prohibited just because it is prohibited in public places?

I would gladly give up that right to remove guns from the populace. The reason being, I have weighed up the probability of the government going tyrannical vs the probability of harm coming to me from the populace being armed such that I consider the latter to be more likely. I have lived in the UK all my life, where most people do not have guns stored in their houses, and I prefer it that way. I would be somewhat worried living in the US, and I wouldn't buy a gun just to feel more secure. I'd rather limit guns to police, shooting ranges and maybe allow them for hunting.