Kids are more at risk in common every day situations according to this data than they are because of guns. This data and my own experience responding to emergencies for the last 18 years is enough to convince me.
That said, do I think we need to fix the problem of gun violence for those other age groups? Hell yes. I think there’s far too much in the general media that glorifies the gun as everything from problem solver to income enhancer, but the question is, do we limit the first amendment to address the societal problems we’re having with the second?
You do, though. The only difference is that your god can be reloaded.
"As far as my argument, believe it cracked if you wish, but do you deny the role of [the Lord] in American history? Can you envision an America in it’s current state without the role that [Christian worship] played?
Nobody’s invading Canada. Nobody’s invading the UK. Guns don’t keep invaders away anymore, and have not since the days of cowboys vs. Indians. Your gun has no magic power to prevent tyranny.
I’m just annoyed when people bring up the ol’ “but cars kill people too” argument. It’s not the same thing. It’s not even in the same ballpark. It’s not a valid comparison for the stupidity that was exhibited when these adults handed a little kid a loaded automatic weapon that is designed solely to kill people. I can tell you that if my child died in a car accident, I would feel grief, but not GUILT for teaching him how to drive. The guilt these people feel will be deserved. They’re not equipped with the judgement necessary to operate firearms.
Since you offer no defense for your feeble grasp of statistics and ezposure to risk, I’ll just observe that you must be one of those people who hear that “75% of accidents happen within five miles of home” and think “Wow, I live in a dangerous neighborhood.”
First, that’s why I said “In Part” due to the 2nd amendment and was stating it as germaine to the conversation. I KNOW there is more to it than that, believe me, but we’re not talking about anything else right now.
I didn’t read that until you pointed it out. My guess when they’re saying “other fun stuff we’re not allowed to mention” is that they have the obligatory Saddam or Osama targets to shoot at, but can’t mention those for fear of some backlash.
The only person responsible for the child is his father. If the father were walking past a strip joint and decided to go inside, that isn’t the fault (at least not legally) of the strip joint. Do they have a moral obligation to boot the kid and his father? Youbetcha.
Any word on if the rest of shooting party was canceled after the kid was shot? If I had to guess, I’d say there was 20 minutes or so of tears or head shaking by the crowd, then back to shooting.
More importantly, apparently, they have a legal obligation to boot the kid and his father. The gun show did not, which appears to be a failure on the part of Massachusetts lawmakers.
Tyranny isn’t a matter solely of invasion or a dictatorial government. An armed population is less likely to be subjected to police techniques that violate basic rights.
Yes if a government these days wants to totally disregards the fundamental rights of its populace, that populace being armed probably won’t stop them, though it wouldn’t hurt, certainly. But I would argue that an armed population makes it harder to kick down doors willy-nilly.
What? If there’s not a law that requires them to do it, because the law was not yet made, they don’t in fact have a legal obligation. I understand what you’re driving at, but what?
Notice I never said that an individual was less likely to have their door kicked down. I talked about an armed populace as opposed to an unarmed populace.
This is ridiculous. It is just another variant of the argument that Country X has guns, Country Y doesn’t, therefore if Country X’s crime rate is higher, it must be because of guns.
All I said is that a police force is less likely to be kicking down doors willy-nilly if they think there is a significant chance they will be greeted by a person defending his property, than if they know that is not a possibility.
And, while I have never lived in Canada, I believe the protections for individuals from police abuses are higher in the US than the UK. I’ve also found the police here to be generally politer and more respectful to the population, having been a lucky recipient of the Met’s friendliness on more than one occasion. I’ll admit other people in the US have different experiences, but that is my personal experience.
Guns are legal in the US for most people. Defending your property from the police with a gun isn’t legal. If the police burst into your house and you shoot at them, you’re most likely dead instead of jailed. Even if you manage to kill all of the police intruders, you are seriously up shit creek. The gun helps not at all in that circumstance. Saying, “But they were infringing on my rights!” isn’t going to make you not-dead.
I don’t know why people can’t grasp this. If the law as an entity turns against you, guns will not help. Guns can only help when the law is on your side.
I don’t agree, jsgoddess. Even if part of your premise is right, you are ignoring the effect on the police themselves. They don’t want to be shot. It isn’t a pleasant experience. The removal of the sole monopoly over force from the government creates government agents who are more likely to be polite.
What do you mean it’s ridiculous?! That’s exactly the argument you were using! Country X has guns, Country Y doesn’t, therefore Country X’s police abuses will be lower because of guns. I just asked you to specify which abuses are more common!
You claim that police are less likely to be kicking down doors willy-nilly in the US. But I’m pretty sure that doors get kicked down by police quite a lot in the US anyway, so it seems like kind of a marginal benefit for civil rights if it even exists in the first place-- which I tend to doubt, as Canadians are not streaming across the border to escape their nation’s Gestapo-like police tactics.
Although the RCMP do boast that they “always get their man,” so maybe they are unreasonably cocky in that respect. I guess if I were a Canadian who really wanted to live in a country where shooting the police is more tolerated culturally, I’d think about relocating to the US.
Would love to see a cite on this. AFAIK, they’re just more likely to do it wearing protective gear. I also can’t quite get behind the idea that they’re more ‘polite’ to people (gang members? drug dealers?) who are more likely to be armed.
But what a glorious line of reasoning in this last page. Kind of reminds me of some Canadian stand-up I saw who said something like: ‘Americans think Canadians are so polite. We’re not. But you’re armed, and we’re not stupid.’