Gun in nightstand

[Nate1979]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
It seems like simple logic to me. A higher rate of gun ownership means a higher rate of gun related deaths.

You can blame parenting or whatever intangibles all you want, but with so many weapons floating around it's hard to deny this basic point.


This is not true unless you only do a superficial investigation of the statistics.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
It seems like simple logic to me. A higher rate of gun ownership means a higher rate of gun related deaths.

You can blame parenting or whatever intangibles all you want, but with so many weapons floating around it's hard to deny this basic point.


Your "simple logic" is not supported by the facts, making it anything but logical.

It is supported only by an appeal to emotion, like the "value firearms ownership" comments, and others, that you've made. It's clear that this is an emotional topic for you. You post the same unsupported positions in thread after thread, supported only by the rhetoric of the anti-gun crowd that twists the facts to support the position that makes visceral sense to them.

That crowd is ruled by feelings, not by logic, not by analysis. Sadly, most people lack the ability to think critically or objectively, so this emotional appeal works well on them.

I value liberty. Frankly, I value that above all.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." was once said by Ben Franklin.

Yet to that crowd driven driven by their emotions, who think only of their own insecurity, their own unwillingness to take responsibility for their successes and failures, their own unwillingness to take responsibility for their safety and security; for that crowd who turns to the government to solve their problems, the promise of increased safety has a deep appeal.

They never stop to think what they've given up, what the price of satisfying their emotional need might be, how they've devolved what was fought for in the establishment of this nation, and what distinguishes this nation from all others on this Earth.

They just "feel" better about having laws passed that restrict others, even though that law curtails their own rights, their own liberties. There have been many examples of recent legislation that curtail liberty for the promise of security.

They are all an affront to the honest thinker, to the people who take responsibility for themselves, for those who actually value liberty.

 

[Astro14]

On to the statistical analysis, then.

Here is one source of data, not from either side of the argument:

https://www.childdeathreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2011Data/US2011.pdf

Now, you'll note in the "Gun in the Nightstand" editorial, the author notes, "All those years ago, I was lucky. If the CDC average is any indication, more than 60 children this year won’t be."

Yet, from the above link, we see several important details. First, that "children" are defined as 19 and under. Which then includes the majority of gang members. Next, that gun deaths comprise about 2% of the "unintentional injury" results. Far below drowning and automobile accidents, that comprise about 60% of deaths. Take away the criminal on criminal violence (since "children" includes those ages up to 19) and firearm deaths drop to an even lower percentage, perhaps 1%.

So, where's the outrage? The emotional appeal to restrict pools, bathtubs, cars and toilets that kill thousands of children every year? I suspect that many of the car deaths are the result of teenage drivers, which moves pools and bathtubs nearer the top for young children.

That's who we think of when the news, or "Moms Demand Action" says children, right? Young kids.

But the data include teenagers and young men in the numbers, not just toddlers. In fact, in a completely disingenuous presentation of the facts, "Moms Demand Action" counts the deaths of persons up to 25 years of age in their "Children killed by guns" statistic, thus including the vast majority of criminal on criminal killing that takes place...

Similar inaccuracies and incongruities exist in country by country comparisons, as each nation categorizes and reports crime differently. For example, some nations don't record rape as violent crime, and since rape is vastly under-reported to begin with, those nations begin to look "safer" because what they report is so much "better" than the US...when it simply isn't true.

Twisting the facts to fit the emotional agenda. Ignoring the data to score political points. It's pretty common...

But without some critical thinking, and particularly if this political position resonates with one's emotional predisposition, people simply accept that false hood as a fact...and then "simple logic" becomes simple fantasy...separated from reality by the degree to which the data are manipulated.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
It's times like this where it's a good idea to turn to FACTS... Accidental gun deaths among children have been on the decline for decades. And the statistical likelihood of dying from an accidental gun death is miniscule compared to things like dieing in a car accident.

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/children-and-guns/

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/accidental-deaths/




What is the likelihood for children who live with a gun in the home or in the home of a close relative?

This would be a better indicator than taking all children in general.

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Your "simple logic" is not supported by the facts, making it anything but logical.

It is supported only by an appeal to emotion, like the "value firearms ownership" comments, and others, that you've made. It's clear that this is an emotional topic for you. You post the same unsupported positions in thread after thread, supported only by the rhetoric of the anti-gun crowd that twists the facts to support the position that makes visceral sense to them.

That crowd is ruled by feelings, not by logic, not by analysis. Sadly, most people lack the ability to think critically or objectively, so this emotional appeal works well on them.

I value liberty. Frankly, I value that above all.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." was once said by Ben Franklin.

Yet to that crowd driven driven by their emotions, who think only of their own insecurity, their own unwillingness to take responsibility for their successes and failures, their own unwillingness to take responsibility for their safety and security; for that crowd who turns to the government to solve their problems, the promise of increased safety has a deep appeal.

They never stop to think what they've given up, what the price of satisfying their emotional need might be, how they've devolved what was fought for in the establishment of this nation, and what distinguishes this nation from all others on this Earth.

They just "feel" better about having laws passed that restrict others, even though that law curtails their own rights, their own liberties. There have been many examples of recent legislation that curtail liberty for the promise of security.

They are all an affront to the honest thinker, to the people who take responsibility for themselves, for those who actually value liberty.


States With Most Gun Deaths Have High Gun Ownership And Weak Gun Laws
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/29/weak-gun-laws-and-high-gu_n_6572384.html

States with Weak Gun Laws and Higher Gun Ownership Lead Nation in Gun Deaths
http://www.vpc.org/press/1406gundeath.htm

A nice breakdown of firearm deaths by state, notice which ones are at the top
http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart14.htm

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

http://www.livescience.com/1216-homicide-rates-higher-states-guns-home.html

It's not an "appeal to emotion" if there's actual evidence to back up the statement.

Also, it is extraordinarily ironic that you would accuse me of such a fallacy and then go on with your own "appeal to emotion" by blabbering about liberty and Ben Franklin and a bunch of other not related hyper-patriotic nonsense after dropping the ad hominem about my ability to think critically or objectively. Not one person in here is trying to take away your "liberty" by forcing you to give up your guns.

Your only real response was to show, via those numbers and critical thinking you seem to value so much, how my statement was wrong. But you didn't, and I presume it's because you can't. Instead you drop a red herring and divert the conversation away from my claim and towards the people who don't see this the way you do.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
I suppose the general issue I have with these conversations is that it seems that the majority of people arguing for guns seem to view them as objects that, when used, release rainbows and unicorn farts.


I'm not sure I've ever read, on BITOG or anywhere else, a discussion involving "people arguing for guns" where those people believe that a gun's barrel emits rainbows and unicorn farts.

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
I'm not sure I've ever read, on BITOG or anywhere else, a discussion involving "people arguing for guns" where those people believe that a gun's barrel emits rainbows and unicorn farts.


It was a metaphor to highlight the absurdity of the position that high rates of gun ownership have zero negative impact to a community.

A reasonable way to approach this conversation would be to highlight the positives and weigh them against the negatives, but the NRA crowd views any mentioning of negatives as an attack on their liberty..... as evidenced by the invocation of the ghost of Benjamin Franklin in this very thread.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: Mykl

States With Most Gun Deaths Have High Gun Ownership And Weak Gun Laws
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/29/weak-gun-laws-and-high-gu_n_6572384.html

I think both sides can give evidence supporting their viewpoint. The problem comes down to illegal guns in the hands of bad people. Laws have little relivance here. They are crafted by feel-good politicians to show their minions that they are doing something meaningful to address the problem. What they are really looking for of course is "votes".

I give you example "A"..Chicago and example "B" Washington DC. Both have several times the violent crime as the U.S. on a whole. Both have some of the toughest gun laws in the U.S.

I have said before that guns in the home cause more deaths than they prevent. But gun laws are never going to remove guns from the home (nor should they). And gun laws wil never have any effect on illegal guns in the hands of criminals. And the statistics on both sides continue.

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Mykl

States With Most Gun Deaths Have High Gun Ownership And Weak Gun Laws
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/29/weak-gun-laws-and-high-gu_n_6572384.html

I think both sides can give evidence supporting their viewpoint. The problem comes down to illegal guns in the hands of bad people. Laws have little relivance here. They are crafted by feel-good politicians to show their minions that they are doing something meaningful to address the problem. What they are really looking for of course is "votes".

I give you example "A"..Chicago and example "B" Washington DC. Both have several times the violent crime as the U.S. on a whole. Both have some of the toughest gun laws in the U.S.

I have said before that guns in the home cause more deaths than they prevent. But gun laws are never going to remove guns from the home (nor should they). And gun laws wil never have any effect on illegal guns in the hands of criminals. And the statistics on both sides continue.


Something that I haven't really seen addressed in a coherent, statistical way is the impact of communities with a high rate of gun ownership and loose ownership rules butting up next to a community with a lower rate of gun ownership, but with strict gun ownership rules.

It's reasonable to believe that the community that makes it easier to get guns would have an impact on the community with stricter gun control laws, it's just really hard to quantify that.

We can cherry pick examples, like Australia and the UK, who have the advantage in that they're both geographically separated from their neighbors, making it far more difficult to smuggle guns in than say from the United States to Mexico.

The "get more guns into the hands of private owners for self defense" argument can get some traction in Mexico, but when it comes to Australia, the UK, Japan, and other countries... their homicide rates are so low that adding guns won't help.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
It was a metaphor to highlight the absurdity of the position that high rates of gun ownership have zero negative impact to a community.


In fairness, I think it goes both ways. The most passionate on both sides typically ignore the pros or the cons of the other perspective. There are risks to gun ownership, and there are benefits as well.

Unfortunate events like these highlight just how important gun safety is. Just as collisions highlight just how important rules-of-the-road are. Carelessness and negligence, regardless of the topic (guns, vehicles, power tools, construction, etc), often leads to injury or loss of life.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Mykl
It seems like simple logic to me. A higher rate of gun ownership means a higher rate of gun related deaths.

You can blame parenting or whatever intangibles all you want, but with so many weapons floating around it's hard to deny this basic point.


Your "simple logic" is not supported by the facts, making it anything but logical.

It is supported only by an appeal to emotion, like the "value firearms ownership" comments, and others, that you've made. It's clear that this is an emotional topic for you. You post the same unsupported positions in thread after thread, supported only by the rhetoric of the anti-gun crowd that twists the facts to support the position that makes visceral sense to them.

That crowd is ruled by feelings, not by logic, not by analysis. Sadly, most people lack the ability to think critically or objectively, so this emotional appeal works well on them.

I value liberty. Frankly, I value that above all.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." was once said by Ben Franklin.

Yet to that crowd driven driven by their emotions, who think only of their own insecurity, their own unwillingness to take responsibility for their successes and failures, their own unwillingness to take responsibility for their safety and security; for that crowd who turns to the government to solve their problems, the promise of increased safety has a deep appeal.

They never stop to think what they've given up, what the price of satisfying their emotional need might be, how they've devolved what was fought for in the establishment of this nation, and what distinguishes this nation from all others on this Earth.

They just "feel" better about having laws passed that restrict others, even though that law curtails their own rights, their own liberties. There have been many examples of recent legislation that curtail liberty for the promise of security.

They are all an affront to the honest thinker, to the people who take responsibility for themselves, for those who actually value liberty.


Here's an example of the how the stats are used.


Example a made up scenario: Bear attacks.

The likelihood of being attacked by a bear while living in Alaska is 10%.

The likelihood of being attacked by a bear in Hawaii is .05%

The National average is 2%.

The "bear advocates" would say "It's only 2 percent not 10". That's a silly comment because bears aren't found everywhere. So while the risk of someone in the US being exposed to and attacked by a bear is extremely low the people living in Alaska sure as [censored] know it's more than 2 percent because they're in bear country.


All kids are exposed to a risk of drowning or fatal car accidents but not all kids are exposed to an environment that contains a gun. This lack of exposure skews the data

 

[Astro14]

Here's an example of how "simple logic" breaks down.

Lowest gun murder rate in the US: Vermont

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Least restrictive gun ownership/carry laws in the US: Vermont. No permit required for concealed carry. No restrictions on firearm ownership, to include weapon type. High rate of gun ownership.

So there clearly isn't a causal relationship between increased gun restrictions and reduced crime/gun death. And in this state, more guns, and more gun availability, coexist with less crime.

But you can skew the facts, seek out and cite gun control supporting websites, to fit a world view founded in fear and emotion. Or perhaps founded in a desire to dictate what others should have and not have, a desire to restrict their liberty for your safety.

No matter how specious the claim.

 

[hattaresguy]

A night stand is a good place for a gun, just throw it in a little safe if little kids are in the house. None in mine so its on top right next to the alarm clock.

Currently a Browning Hi Power, but I'm shopping for a Swiss Luger. Why not shoot a home intruder with style?

 

[Astro14]

There is clearly a need for more responsible ownership in some cases. Like our author's nightstand.

But part of that includes education about firearms. None of my kids would ever treat a gun with such casual idiocy as described by the author. But the author, who was never taught the basic rules, can be forgiven for his stupidity. His ignorance of fundamental gun safety was evident in the article and an equal part of how the risk was created.

Interestingly, he is only dimly aware that his own ignorance was part of he cause of risk.

If we treated other areas of risk with equal ignorance (for example, never tell kids about going near the pool, don't restrict their access to the pool, allow them to be near the pool unsupervised when they can't swim) then we wouldn't just restrict the ownership of those things, we would, in addition, educate both the parents and the children about the risks.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Here's an example of how "simple logic" breaks down.

Lowest gun murder rate in the US: Vermont

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Least restrictive gun ownership/carry laws in the US: Vermont. No permit required for concealed carry. No restrictions on firearm ownership, to include weapon type. High rate of gun ownership.

So there clearly isn't a causal relationship between increased gun restrictions and reduced crime/gun death. And in this state, more guns, and more gun availability, coexist with less crime.

But you can skew the facts, seek out and cite gun control supporting websites, to fit a world view founded in fear and emotion. Or perhaps founded in a desire to dictate what others should have and not have, a desire to restrict their liberty for your safety.

No matter how specious the claim.


Why not use Georgia or Texas?

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Here's an example of how "simple logic" breaks down.

Lowest gun murder rate in the US: Vermont

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Least restrictive gun ownership/carry laws in the US: Vermont. No permit required for concealed carry. No restrictions on firearm ownership, to include weapon type. High rate of gun ownership.

So there clearly isn't a causal relationship between increased gun restrictions and reduced crime/gun death. And in this state, more guns, and more gun availability, coexist with less crime.

But you can skew the facts, seek out and cite gun control supporting websites, to fit a world view founded in fear and emotion. Or perhaps founded in a desire to dictate what others should have and not have, a desire to restrict their liberty for your safety.

No matter how specious the claim.


Why not use Georgia or Texas?


This is very true. Until you start adding some income, racial and other related factors into play, most of which are all not PC, one isnt truly calling a spade a spade.

If were going to look at one statistic, we have to look at all of them holistically. If were going to throw statistics out (as some others have intended), then as much as people dont like me saying it, it starts to be more of a fear-driven exercise.

But here's the thing. Be it US, Canada, UK, or Somalia, it doesnt matter - there are few things Id be more fearful of than a knock on the door, or a break of my door, in the night. Nope, Im not concerned about going to church, or the supermarket, or even drive through the inner city on my terms, planning and choice of scenarios. But one notionally spends 12+ hours a day at home, many of those not conscious. So a surprise in the night, regardless of how unlikely, still skews one from being master of their own domain, IN their OWN domain. That's an issue.

But as some have noted in other places, more guns do mean more accidents, more unforeseen situations, more death. Those could be violence-based, suicide-based, or just plain accidents. So again, as always, there truly is a happy medium. When I worked in precious metals, there were firearms scattered all over the store in the secure area. At home, the risk of others encountering dispersed firearms may be greater than the risk of needing one in any one random spot in the home. And the maximum credible risk that will have the least potential to diffuse an encounter another way is in the scenario of being waken up in the middle of the night from deep sleep. So the "nightstand" equivalent is indeed the most viable location to maintain a firearm, besides a safe or security container.

The problem though is that over 150k guns are stolen per year. Likely many of those come from unsecured locations like night stands, where people get lazy about securing them when away. Ditto for child-related gun deaths. Thus there is an extreme element of personal responsibility when it comes to maintaining an accessible firearm for the purpose of defeating credible risks.

 

[rjundi]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Here's an example of how "simple logic" breaks down.

Lowest gun murder rate in the US: Vermont

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Least restrictive gun ownership/carry laws in the US: Vermont. No permit required for concealed carry. No restrictions on firearm ownership, to include weapon type. High rate of gun ownership.

So there clearly isn't a causal relationship between increased gun restrictions and reduced crime/gun death. And in this state, more guns, and more gun availability, coexist with less crime.

But you can skew the facts, seek out and cite gun control supporting websites, to fit a world view founded in fear and emotion. Or perhaps founded in a desire to dictate what others should have and not have, a desire to restrict their liberty for your safety.

No matter how specious the claim.


It could be the populace of VT is simply a more educated and socialistic leaning state. Not sure the best compare state. Generally the folks I know in VT don't make a big deal out guns and same in NH. Folks in NH/VT seem to be above open carry even though allowed. It just rarely happens and not part of our culture. Violence is very low here.

 

[javacontour]

Not a metaphor, you tried to use a logical fallacy, already pointed out in this thread.

Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
I'm not sure I've ever read, on BITOG or anywhere else, a discussion involving "people arguing for guns" where those people believe that a gun's barrel emits rainbows and unicorn farts.


It was a metaphor to highlight the absurdity of the position that high rates of gun ownership have zero negative impact to a community.

A reasonable way to approach this conversation would be to highlight the positives and weigh them against the negatives, but the NRA crowd views any mentioning of negatives as an attack on their liberty..... as evidenced by the invocation of the ghost of Benjamin Franklin in this very thread.

 

[javacontour]

It's because the pro-gun-rights crowd believes the problem is the person, not the tool.

We believe that only those who were responsible before are going to be responsible when there are more laws.

But it's not PC to lock people up and keep them locked up if they've demonstrated repeated failures to follow the law. Instead of addressing the law breakers, people want to take guns away from the law abiding citizens.

Because if you craft more laws, do we really expect those who have not followed the current set of laws and safe practices to suddenly become model citizens when a new law is passed?

Address the real problem, which is behavior.

Until we do that, there are no gun laws that will address the issue.

Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
I'm not sure I've ever read, on BITOG or anywhere else, a discussion involving "people arguing for guns" where those people believe that a gun's barrel emits rainbows and unicorn farts.


It was a metaphor to highlight the absurdity of the position that high rates of gun ownership have zero negative impact to a community.

A reasonable way to approach this conversation would be to highlight the positives and weigh them against the negatives, but the NRA crowd views any mentioning of negatives as an attack on their liberty..... as evidenced by the invocation of the ghost of Benjamin Franklin in this very thread.

 

[Astro14]

Actually, Vermont is less restrictive on guns than New Hampshire, though both are rural. No permit needed for concealed carry. Less restrictive than TX or GA, too.

Vermont also has the least minority population by percentage (tied with Maine)of any state.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Breakdown_by_state

It also has a higher than average personal income. It is more rural than any other state, when measured by average town size.

But we have to be careful about how we view those statistics, some ugly conclusions could easily be drawn, should we choose to do so...