Child, 2, kills self with gun from mom's purse, police say
- Thread starter The Inspector
- Start date
Jackie22
Well-known Member
- Location
- Northeast Texas
Exactly!
Shalimar
SF VIP
- Location
- Vancouver Island Canada
It defies all logic.
Objective observers are doing just that. It is the minority with wild ideas that are causing all this publicity about our Constitutional rights. You won't find enough Democrats or Republicans willing to start tearing into our Constitution and changing things for personal reasons and no justifications.
The US once tried to fight drunken driving but it ended up in one of our worst times for many. We now make drinks legal, just as we now have legal guns. Break the law with guns or with drinking and you will be in court to find your punishment.
Jackie22
Well-known Member
- Location
- Northeast Texas
I think if you check a few surveys, you'll find that there is a majority in this country that want more gun control.
No reason for me to check. I am happy with the way things are these days. Why don't you post such stats for all of us to see? If there really are such stats.
There is no big gun elimination drive going that I am aware of. Some of these recent posts are saying things but no proofs are presented.
Shalimar
SF VIP
- Location
- Vancouver Island Canada
In the end, no proofs are enough if a person holds an impermeable opinion.
Jackie22
Well-known Member
- Location
- Northeast Texas
ttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/roanoke-shooting-gun-poll_55e0ab28e4b0aec9f35329c0
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...oll-more-americans-crave-stricter-gun-control
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/03/12/185595/poll-americans-want-background.html#storylink=cpy
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-guns-idUSKCN0UQ2O220160113
They are all of earlier years and as was reported in more than one the response for more gun controls was usually only for a short time after the incident and then faded away.
Exactly as should be expected after any well publicized tragedy. Long term responses are the more true about what folks are really thinking, and that is not about constantly poking into the eyes of gun owners.
I really doubt if the current gun restrictions have been around long enough to have left a real trail of improvement or no improvement. We do have guns around from many years of no control, about 200+ years, and that will take years of time for the new laws, 10 years or less, to really show good or bad effects. And if these folks you published think that the majority want changes, I don't agree that to be true. Any such message has failed to reach the levels of our Congress as they have refused to take further action, and that included the Democrat leader of the Senate, Harry Reid.
Last edited:
Debby
Well-known Member
- Location
- East coast of Canada
The Reuters article: January 2016 - 63% want stricter gun control laws
The Hill (Gallup Poll): October 2015 - 55% in favour of tighter gun control, up 6% since 2014
McClatchy Poll: March 2013 - a mixture of questions with a variety of results and support for gun ownership being strongest in the south, but 55% want assault weapons banned
So there you are, not 'earlier years' as some would have you believe and an amazing assumption being made about how long those opinions lasted ('only a short time after an incident'). Proof of that one is necessary or we can disregard it as fiction because that opinion is most definitely not stated in any of the three articles. It should also be noted that there is no single set of rules and regulations on gun ownership, gun purchasing, back ground check information being obtained/saved or even sales records for that matter so any reference to 'current gun restrictions being in place long enough to tell if they are working' would have a sensible person asking, "which states rules are being discussed?". (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...s-no-one-knows)
But as Shalimar once said so wisely, 'In the end, no proofs are enough if a person holds an impermeable opinion.'.
The Hill (Gallup Poll): October 2015 - 55% in favour of tighter gun control, up 6% since 2014
McClatchy Poll: March 2013 - a mixture of questions with a variety of results and support for gun ownership being strongest in the south, but 55% want assault weapons banned
So there you are, not 'earlier years' as some would have you believe and an amazing assumption being made about how long those opinions lasted ('only a short time after an incident'). Proof of that one is necessary or we can disregard it as fiction because that opinion is most definitely not stated in any of the three articles. It should also be noted that there is no single set of rules and regulations on gun ownership, gun purchasing, back ground check information being obtained/saved or even sales records for that matter so any reference to 'current gun restrictions being in place long enough to tell if they are working' would have a sensible person asking, "which states rules are being discussed?". (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...s-no-one-knows)
But as Shalimar once said so wisely, 'In the end, no proofs are enough if a person holds an impermeable opinion.'.
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
Gun massacres and accidental shootings by toddlers are two different things and require different solutions. It is only about a month or so since a similar instance of a toddler in the back seat of a car, no doubt in a mandatory child restraint, shot his mother with her own gun yet it has happened again and this time the mother is dead. How is the constitution relevant here?
The Constitution is not relevant here. It is another incident where the gun was mishandled by the registered owner. Sad situation for sure.
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
I have just have my morning bath and I was thinking about this while relaxing in the hot water. I do some of my best thinking in my bath.
This is what came to me.
We all know how the US was mightily successful with the Apollo missions. It began with a desire to put men on the Moon and bring them back safely. The problem then becomes how do we do this?
I was taught that the successful outcome depended on top down problem solving where you take a big, seemingly impossible problem and break it down into smaller problems that you can solve.
eg How do we escape Earth's gravity? How do we keep the astronauts alive on the way to the Moon and on its surface? How do we get them onto the Moon's Surface/ How do we get them off again? and so on.
Each sub-problem needs to be further broken down until every detail is taken care of and the big problem becomes manageable. We all know how this was done by NASA and we know that it wasn't without some teething problems.
Suppose the same problem solving technique was applied to the issue of death by firearms. The objective would be to reduce this very big problem to a number of smaller problems, each of which could be analysed and worked on.
For example the sub problems could be accidental deaths, deliberate homicides, suicides and these could be further divided as follows
Accidental - hunting accidents, access by children, faulty equipment, etc Deliberate - terrorism, criminal, domestic violence, mental health, massacres etc. Suicides - mental health, rational self euthanasia, murder-suicide, etc.
By following top down problem solving techniques it should be possible to find some measures that would be effective in reducing the death rate without violating the second amendment.
Then, if another problem occurs, such as a surge in deaths by knives, or poisoning or baseball bat, that problem could be addressed using similar analytical tools.
Just a thought. But if the US could put men on the Moon and bring them back alive..... ?
This is what came to me.
We all know how the US was mightily successful with the Apollo missions. It began with a desire to put men on the Moon and bring them back safely. The problem then becomes how do we do this?
I was taught that the successful outcome depended on top down problem solving where you take a big, seemingly impossible problem and break it down into smaller problems that you can solve.
eg How do we escape Earth's gravity? How do we keep the astronauts alive on the way to the Moon and on its surface? How do we get them onto the Moon's Surface/ How do we get them off again? and so on.
Each sub-problem needs to be further broken down until every detail is taken care of and the big problem becomes manageable. We all know how this was done by NASA and we know that it wasn't without some teething problems.
Suppose the same problem solving technique was applied to the issue of death by firearms. The objective would be to reduce this very big problem to a number of smaller problems, each of which could be analysed and worked on.
For example the sub problems could be accidental deaths, deliberate homicides, suicides and these could be further divided as follows
Accidental - hunting accidents, access by children, faulty equipment, etc Deliberate - terrorism, criminal, domestic violence, mental health, massacres etc. Suicides - mental health, rational self euthanasia, murder-suicide, etc.
By following top down problem solving techniques it should be possible to find some measures that would be effective in reducing the death rate without violating the second amendment.
Then, if another problem occurs, such as a surge in deaths by knives, or poisoning or baseball bat, that problem could be addressed using similar analytical tools.
Just a thought. But if the US could put men on the Moon and bring them back alive..... ?
Some more or your emotional and twisted postings. You only read 3 links but 4 links were given. Now the earlier years were my way of saying not this years ideas. The items in 2013 were not of 2016. And your observations of how the guns are registered will also toss many of the anti gun claims to the dogs as well. No proofs one way means no proofs the other way as well.
Your attempt at personal attack has failed. See below and read carefully. I don't like to tell lies nor do I like to accept them either.
Now for the 4th link, it is this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/roanoke-shooting-gun-poll_us_55e0ab28e4b0aec9f35329c0
Many Americans Want Stricter Gun Laws. Will It Matter?
Despite the latest shooting, the political calculus for gun control remains grim.
08/28/2015 05:35 pm ET | Updated Aug 28, 2015
Ariel Edwards-Levy Staff Reporter and Polling Director, The Huffington Post
In the aftermath of a high-profile shooting, three things tend to happen: A crop of newly bereaved advocates renew the call for gun control legislation; support for such laws spikes briefly, if at all; and little change is actually effected.
Days after the fatal shooting of two journalists on live TV near Roanoke, Virginia, that pattern may be repeating.
“There needs to be some action that is taken out of an event like this — out of an event like Sandy Hook, like Charleston, like Aurora, Colorado ... where these things just don’t occur anymore,” Chris Hurst, the boyfriend of slain reporter Alison Parker, told CNN on Thursday.Her father, Andy Parker, has vowed to become an advocate for increased gun control, saying he hopes he can prevent others from facing the same kind of loss he has.
In a HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted since the Wednesday morning shooting, 55 percent of Americans say gun control laws should be made stricter, 27 percent say they should remain the same and 12 percent say they should be eased. The level of support for gun control is as high as it’s been in HuffPost/YouGov polls since the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting — which isn’t surprising, given that many Americans were taking the survey with the latest tragedy fresh in their minds, if not actively playing out on their televisions.
But that increase in support after the Newtown, Connecticut, massacre, proceeded to ebb away without bringing substantive changes in policy. Other recent shootings haven’t produced any notable change in opinion at all.
“I hope this time will be different for us,” Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), who’s advocated unsuccessfully for gun control, told The New York Times. “It’s like the hamster on the hamster wheel — you just go round and round, something happens, everybody comes out and says, ‘We need more gun restrictions,’ and then it fades into the background.”
The latest spike in support for such restrictions might not even be that much of a spike. The Economist/YouGov poll, which has seen a slight uptick in support all year, found backing for gun laws just 3 percentage points lower at the beginning of August than the HuffPost/YouGov poll found it after the shooting. CBS News, which asks a similar question, has found support for stricter gun laws hovering between 47 and 54 percent for the past two years.
There’s also little change in responses to another question. In the latest HuffPost/YouGov poll, Americans said by a margin of 46 percent to 36 percent that shootings were more likely to be prevented by stricter gun control laws and enforcement than by more private citizens carrying guns for protection. Four HuffPost/YouGov surveys going back to 2012, taken both after high-profile shootings and at other times, found the percentage favoring stricter gun laws holding steady between 44 and 46 percent.
“The reaction has become sadly standardized,” Don Haider-Merkel, a professor at the University of Kansas, told The Washington Post this week, adding that “proposals to restrict access to firearms tend to fade quickly.”
(And more)
While 43 percent of Americans in the HuffPost/YouGov survey say stricter gun control laws would reduce the number of shootings in the U.S., another 47 percent believe they’d have no effect or would actually make things worse.
(More)
Shalimar
SF VIP
- Location
- Vancouver Island Canada
It is not necessary to turn honest disagreement into negative remarks about a person's character. A difference of opinion is in no way indicative of a personal attack. We should all be able to express ourselves courteously here without fear of recrimination. Pax.
Constitutional rights aside, I find it interesting that guns are needed for 'protection'. Other countries' citizens don't seem to fear each other in this way. Does this indicate a violent, blood thirsty population that enjoys killing, and is not to be trusted, that the very idea of changing or amending gun laws strikes terror and fury in the hearts of gun toters. Looks to me like hellish way to live.
Debby
Well-known Member
- Location
- East coast of Canada
You're right Bob, I didn't notice the Huffington Post article link, so apparently it is the general way of American citizens that they get all wound up in the immediate aftermath of a bloody massacre and then lose interest in improving safety. Isn't that a sad situation? But I think the other three (recent) links also point to a gradual growing desire of the public to see better registration and background check methods and a complete accounting of where those guns that are sold, are going as well as keeping access to them a little more difficult to prevent at least some criminals and all juveniles from getting hold of them.
I do apologize if I offended you, but seriously, you do seem to have little patience for the idea of making the general public safer (without taking your guns away or opening up your Constitution)
Something not at all mentioned here is the criminal element that does not care about or abide by the laws of the US cities or nation. I have posted such before on this forum but nobody seems to give the criminal element any consideration or the intended victims any reason for defensive ways.
We have the drug gangs that do bother to have guns, most likely from sources not registered or tracked by the authorities. But then the innocent one with registered guns, attempting to follow the laws get blamed again for something they did not do and again attacked for things they are not doing.
We have the plain old burglar just out trying to find money or material and using unregistered guns for his operations. Walking into small stores or gas stations and demanding to have the cash register opened so he can take the money. And again the innocent are again blamed for something the did not do and again attacked for things they did not do.
Angry persons just raging but with a gun in his hands. This might be a registered gun to him or not. If registered, of course the rage will take him to jail. If not registered his actions will take him to jail. All this registration does not help put him in jail but does help the courts to place the blame.
Not one bit of all this registration will help shut down the criminal elements that operate so openly in some of our cities. So openly that I was advised by the police to be careful when driving around to be careful to be planning my escape when stopped by a traffic light or told to stay out of certain areas, or told not to go into certain city parks, all due to the violence being carried out by gangs that may have guns or may not have guns but do want to overcome others in 'their territory' for reasons untold.
Yes there are areas where it is best to stay home and never leave for your own safety. Some folks also like to go into the wilderness for their free times and camp. A gun then is considered to be good for protection from the natural enemies of the wild or the possibility of the dangerous individuals happening on to their camp and being a threat.
Late in the day or in the evening or night. You hear noises in your house. You find a burglar has entered and looking for items to take. The presence of a gun will likely cause them to leave and take nothing. Some states do acknowledge this event and do not punish the home protector for scaring the burglar or even shooting them in defense of their property.
Some comments from one with no guns but willing to see the reasons for those who want guns to help make life seem safer for them. Far too many of the comment posted on this subject do not recognize the reasons for having a gun in the US. It is legal and constitutional for all to do so. The US has a government 'of the people' and until the people do say no more guns and the Congress acts, not much many folks can do.
We are 'people' attempting to have our ways presented and followed and not just some political mess driven down on the people by some overbearing groups of political, rather than people, driven from those elitist folks. But in recent years we are more and more being driven by the political bunch that more or less try to be the ones determining our paths, rather than allow the elected Congress bring forth the rules wanted by the people.
We are not a blood thirsty population at all. We do have plenty to think of and the right to take defensive ways in our own hands. It is not the guns being the problems but it is the uncontrolled and drugged, thieves, mentally deranged, and so forth. Not the majority at all being the problem.
Matrix
Admin
I have seen too many gun related debates on this forum, it never ends well, especially when it happens between American and non-US members. I think partly because it's a culture in the US, and it's impossible to convince other people that their culture is wrong.
It's kinda like the British royal family, I believe American members can come up with some good reasons to stop the royal family tradition, I'm glad no one ever tried to do it.
It's kinda like the British royal family, I believe American members can come up with some good reasons to stop the royal family tradition, I'm glad no one ever tried to do it.
If the biggest pushers of the 'no guns' rules were of US rather than the 'out of country' types it would be easier to take. Make your comments and then move on. Keeping to the front issue by repeating and repeating and repeating does nothing to fix any problem, real or imaginary.
Why many folks change from enraged to less concerned is not some mysterious thing at all. It is initial shock, partially created by the news folks and then the mellowing of time where folks get to see the bigger picture and less of the initial shock.
Our total gun crimes items have been coming down over recent years but no one seems to notice this at all. Until we get the proper folks in our government involved with the legal ways to change our gun laws, nothing will happen just because of the way the press handles things.
We do have reasons to have these guns in the population. Canada has them, Australia has them, just nobody talking about the guns in the population except in the US. Maybe we should also attack the Swiss as they have guns in the population as part of their growing up rituals. But after passing these ages they still get to keep the guns in their homes and participate in the gun field days. Far too much of this US anti gun nonsense going on for no reason at all.
Don't want a gun, simple, don't have one. Same choice for all in the US. One big problem with the registration thing is that it is for the guns that are sold by regular dealers. Some folks with guns can just sell them to others and no registration is required. There are reason for thousands of unregistered guns to be around. Even registering ammo will not end the unregistered guns situation as many folks do make their own ammunition by reusing their own ammo.
I guess we really need a cop in each persons life to make it work by some folks ideas.
Debby
Well-known Member
- Location
- East coast of Canada
An interesting, brief history of the advent of gun control in Australia in Huffington Post this morning: http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/20...form_n_9717980.html?utm_hp_ref=world&ir=World
A few points that make it interesting:
Australia's last mass murder happened in 1996 when a monster killed 35 people. He had no history of mental illness or criminal involvement although that wouldn't have made a difference as there were no restrictions on the mentally ill or minors getting guns.
All automatic and semi-automatic weapons were banned, but if you could show a genuine need, you were allowed to own several other types of lower powered guns.
Gun licensing protocols were strengthened, gun safety courses were introduced and registration of all guns was required. There was also a 28 day waiting period before you could purchase a gun after licensing was approved.
At the time, gun enthusiasts were known to have threatened the PM to the point that in those initial days, he wore a protective vest under his jacket and other members of the government often were recipients of threatening phone calls.
The NRA has cited Australia's gun ban and claims that it has made no difference to gun homicides despite the fact that it has halved since the ban took place. I think that a link in a comment a few back points to the low number of gun deaths in that country.
Many Australians feel that the ban has actually made Australia (feel like) a safer place.
A few points that make it interesting:
Australia's last mass murder happened in 1996 when a monster killed 35 people. He had no history of mental illness or criminal involvement although that wouldn't have made a difference as there were no restrictions on the mentally ill or minors getting guns.
All automatic and semi-automatic weapons were banned, but if you could show a genuine need, you were allowed to own several other types of lower powered guns.
Gun licensing protocols were strengthened, gun safety courses were introduced and registration of all guns was required. There was also a 28 day waiting period before you could purchase a gun after licensing was approved.
At the time, gun enthusiasts were known to have threatened the PM to the point that in those initial days, he wore a protective vest under his jacket and other members of the government often were recipients of threatening phone calls.
The NRA has cited Australia's gun ban and claims that it has made no difference to gun homicides despite the fact that it has halved since the ban took place. I think that a link in a comment a few back points to the low number of gun deaths in that country.
Many Australians feel that the ban has actually made Australia (feel like) a safer place.
Debby
Well-known Member
- Location
- East coast of Canada
Bob, when the world continues to hear time after time, that another American has gone on a rampage and killed a bunch of innocent people, or another child finds it's mothers 'legal' gun, it is a case of Americans putting itself back into the news and is not the fault of any outsider. If you don't want people in general to discuss then 'you' are going to have to change the stage. Only 'you' can do that. And when you do have 55%-63% of people in America wanting better gun control, but you don't listen to the majority, then obviously you don't take 'it' in any instance. 'Democracy?', well not always?
If your gun deaths stats were as low as Canada's or Australia's, and you had consistent registration and licensing requirements throughout the US, then the situation would be comparable. But you don't and hence, America has placed itself in the spotlight. Time to quit blaming the rest of the world for noting the ongoing horrors of mass murder in the US. You even noted yourself, that there is 'a problem' with people selling guns to others with no registrations being required. That isn't possible in Canada. Gosh, we even have to get transport permits to take a gun to a gun shop to sell the thing back. And yes, according to that article I found on how many guns there are in the US, the reason there are unregistered guns in the US goes directly to a patchwork of requirements vs. non-requirements entirely.
And since you wanted to bring Switzerland into the discussion, I found this in your own Library of Congress: Summary
Switzerland has a comprehensive gun-control regime that is governed by federal law and implemented by the cantons. This regime may be somewhat less restrictive than that of other European countries, yet since 2008 it has complied with European Union requirements. The Swiss Weapons Act requires an acquisition license for handguns and a carrying license for the carrying of any permitted firearm for defensive purposes. Exceptions exist for hunters. Automatic weapons are banned.
A further examination of their laws:
Current Gun-Control Law
- Acquisition license required for handguns. Fully automatic guns are banned.
- Applicant must be 18 years of age and never been placed under guardianship(in trouble with the law?)
- Rifles and semiautomatic guns used by hunters exempted from licensing requirements.
- Licensing is valid for acquisition of one gun and is valid for six to nine months. (must be renewed annually?)
- If a private individual sells a gun to another private individual, he's required to ask the 'buyer' if he minds if the seller requests information from the authorities on him, and then not to sell it if the buyer declines. The seller must also verify the buyers identification via official documentation.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Swiss gun deaths per 100,000 - 3.08
Canadian gun deaths - 1.97
Australian gun deaths - .93
United States gun deaths - 10.54
(it should be noted that the above numbers do change when suicides by firearm are no longer factored in, but America has the highest number of suicides per 100,000)
I've never suggested that you people need to ban guns outright have I? Never. But until your people decide to aim for greater safety for your population by tightening up your laws on guns, I'm going to continue expressing an opinion. Freedom of speech right?
You are continuing to repeat yourself and using pure BS for support. All these so called public opinion surveys mean nothing as they can be taken in far left areas where the feelings are similar. Only the feelings that make it to the Congress and get real attention mean any thing at all. I only read the first part as I have told you your constant repetition of nonsense means nothing in the real US conversations. Find something more interesting and start working on that. This gun nonsense only makes sense to the minority that hate guns for any reason. If this were a majority it would have made our Congress and even with Obama's pushing the Congress has failed to see it as worth while discussing.
Freedom of speech? For insiders yes, for other country folks that is not the intent of our Constitution. We also have rules and laws about other folks and their constant nonsense being acceptable or not. Which ones I don't know and will not try to look up. Some folks do get politely told to 'shut up or move on'. Maybe that would be appropriate for the gun issues too. If not US then maybe shut up or move on. Certainly the constant nagging will not get our Congress to pay much attention as they have other more important things to work on.
Right now and after the next election the Congress is needing to worry about our $19 trillion and growing debt. Our slowly declining gun deaths should be recognized and applauded. The nagging is doing nothing of value and for no reason. Suicide can and does happen in many ways and should not be considered as a result of guns for any suicide.
You did not respond to my posting that many guns in the US do not get registered as they are not exchanged by licensed dealers. Many of our gun problems are from the criminals and not at all the gun owners.