A blog dedicated to the rational discussion of politics and current events.
Well except according to CDC those other two causes of Death are over 50% of all the fatal injuries to that demograpic:http://www.weerdworld.com/2014/images-of-the-antis-selfish/So I think what's more troubling is what is so important to YOU!, That 50% of preventable deaths, or the 4% constituting firearms.
So? That is an unacceptable number of preventable deaths.OTHER countries don't have anything remotely close to that statistic.It is PREVENTABLE. THAT is the POINT.We have a choice, children or guns. Future or no future. Our gun culture is a failure.
It is Quite obvious you care little about the children and everything about the guns.As for those 'other countries' go right ahead and move there.(Oh and since gun laws have been relaxed in the last decade, those 'gun deaths' have been falling.but all you care about is the guns.
It is NOT 'quite obvious' that I care little about children and everything about the guns'.I argue here regularly and often for things like SNAP benefits that feed children, and for other legislation that benefits children, and for issues relating to public health, including the safety of children.Those gun deaths are not falling in the states where gun laws have been relaxed either; they have been falling where gun laws have been stricter. The locales with the high numbers are trying to take credit for the advances made by the locales with stricter gun laws.Our gun death numbers for children are way to high. It is a sign of moral bankruptcy to try to justify guns because you don't think too many children are being killed by them. ANY gun deaths of children are unacceptable.
Heh, you think that's true don't you?
It is not about what I think is true; it is demonstrably true, as proven by the body of posts I've written here and elsewhere.So, why do you think it is ok for kids to be killed by guns?Of course it is not, but apparently you think killing off quite a few is worth it to have lax gun laws, from your comments on this post.
If anything you said was true, guns would already be banned here, and I'd be leading the charge.Hey, but you believe it, and that's what keeps me reading here!
The facts are on my side, not yours.Example:http://www.boston.com/dailydose/2013/03/06/states-with-strictest-firearm-laws-have-lowest-rates-gun-deaths-boston-children-hospital-study-finds/zaIGbTdwtVaPFiGlCfSlTP/story.html a study from Boston Children’s Hospital found that states with the highest number of gun laws have the lowest rate of gun deaths due to homicides and suicides.The research, published online Wednesday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, analyzed gun laws in all 50 states as well as the total number of gun-related deaths in each state from 2007 through 2010. It found that fatality rates ranged from a high of 17.9 per 100,000 people in Louisiana -- a state among those with the fewest gun laws -- to a low of 2.9 per 100,000 in Hawaii, which ranks sixth for its number of gun restrictions. Massachusetts, which the researchers said has the most gun restrictions, had a gun fatality rate of 3.4 per 100,000.“Critics of gun laws have said that gun laws don’t work, but our research indicates the opposite,” said study leader Dr. Eric Fleegler, a pediatric emergency medicine physician at Boston Children’s Hospital. “In states with the most laws, we found a dramatic decreased rate in firearm fatalities,...""The new study found that states with the most laws had a 37 percent lower rate of suicides by firearm and a 40 percent lower rate of homicides compared with those with the fewest laws."Oh wait --- this was a study done at a Massachusetts hospital, and published in the Journal of American Medicine Association, (Internal Medicine specialty).YOU are in MA, aren't you WB? Do I recall correctly that you even work in the medical field?And it's not like this is the only example of how what I've said is true, So get in line, you're too late to be leading the charge for stricter gun control (not a gun ban).The facts are not your friends or on your side.
there you go only being concerned with guns...again the #3 cause of fatal injury, and 10% of the totals of #1, and #2.I talk about violent crime, murder, and safety, because I don't like those things and would like to see less. You go digging through the stats, pick out the majority of them and discard them, and dive right on distant #3.why? I can only assume you aren't as upset by death, violent crime, and murder as I am....but boy you don't like guns and certainly would rather see less of that than anything else.
You don't think kids dying from guns is violent? Or unsafe?We have seen, clearly, that guns contribute to the number of violent crimes, including murder, and make people less safe, not more safe.There is no majority of stats that support your case, and no cherry picking to support side required.Here are a few stats which underline why - fewer people own guns now, and those few own more guns. The fewer people owning guns results in fewer gun crimes, including fewer gun murders, not lax gun laws -- as is shown by the states with the strictest gun laws having fewer gun deaths etc. and the states with the most guns and the most lax gun laws having the most.Here is another fact you can't argue your way around. Every gun starts out as a legal weapon, so every gun in the hands of a criminal or dangerous and irresponsible person got there because it came from a legal owner. So clearly a lot of gun owners are lax in securing their weapons, and worse, in transferring their firearms to other people who shouldn't have them.THAT can be improved up on by stricter gun laws; see the previous fact source from your home state of MA. And see all of the stats in all of the other countries that tightened up their gun laws.A civil society is not one with guns, but rather one that doesn't rely on them being widely distributed and used to resolve conflicts. Ours is the latter, and that is why our gun culture is an epic failure.The dichotomy of good guys with guns and bad guys with guns is false. It is a two dimensional false choice. The reality is that all of us can be bad in certain circumstances, all of us are tempted, subject to provocation, and at risk for errors in judgment.See my post about Kurt Daudt as a perfect example, and his involvement in a gun incident in Montana where children were put at risk from his gun. HE was wrong, and so was his associate, neither were 'good guys with guns', yet he as a pro-gun concealed carry permit holder doesn't acknowledge his own error in judgement, negligence or apparent law breaking -- like so many cc holders.You haven't shown that statement to be false, because it is true over and over again.
Again, it isn't true. If it was, you'd have won by now. The modern gun control movement has existed here since the 1960s, and every major victory that has been accomplished has only made further endeavors that much more unlikely, while repeal of previous laws have become more prevalent.The high water mark for your movement was 1994...that was a long time to be losing ground.Further if gun owners were on decline these inaccurate and misleading facts would be as effective as they were in '94 where the majority of the US population thought "Assault Weapons" were full auto arms that were impractical for hunting and personal defense.Also I haven't had a chance to fully read the above mentioned story, but I see it as a prime example of why the laws work. He did a stupid and violent act, and now is looking at serious jail time.All with nobody being hurt. And that's the only way laws work, they don't prevent crime, but punish people for committing them, and dissuade people from people committing them in the first place.The laws you advocate here are redundant because they will no further punish criminals, but they do add activities that are common and most people don't see as criminal to the books.Again, why you are losing ground.I know I'm not convincing you, nor your handful of lockstep readers.The nice part is I don't have to.
Wrong WB. The current gun control movement dates back to the NRA; there is no old versus modern gun control.The current opposition to gun control, hugely funded by gun manufacturers, dates to the takeover of the NRA by right wing extremists in the 1970s.We are not losing ground.The CC laws don't work. Daudt appears to have improperly and possibly illegally transported his personal firearm across two states that do not recognize MN cc permits. He then negligently allowed his firearm to be used by someone else in a criminal act that endangered multiple people, including children. Instead of taking the gun away from the bad guy with HIS gun,AND instead of reporting the incident to law enforcement and cooperating with them, Daudt and his friend fled but were caught.That is not lawful behavior, that is not responsible behavior by a CC permit holder who happens to be the very publicly pro-gun Minority Leader of the MN State House of Representatives.He also tried to cover up the story.That no one was hurt is not because the laws worked, but damn luck. Clearly Daudt should never have had a CC permit, and should lose it now. Better - by better, I mean stricter, laws would hold Daudt accountable for his negligent behavior and take away his future gun ownership for his contribution to endangering multiple people.And yes, since his own party called for a vote of no-confidence, which will be revisited Tuesday when the state caucuses appear, it is clear that people don't see his conduct as normal or common or acceptable, and yes, they are preventable -- maybe not 100%, but based on comparisons to other jurisdictions, a lot of them are.Daudt demonstrated that people who claim to be good guys with guns are not, nor are they responsible gun owners, nor are they law abiding.
"We are not losing ground."Then take it! If what you say is true that's all pretty darn convincing stuff, and all what I say is a complete fabrication, and I'm just somebody who doesn't care about dead kids, and am paranoid, that's a pretty easy battle to win.Plus if gun owners like myself are in an ever-shrinking minority, then its even greater.There is no reason why Manchin-Toomey didn't pass, or the various expanded "Assault Weapon" bills didn't even make it out of committee. Hell Conceal carry bans should be on the table rather than now having some form or another from no permit required in 4.9 states, to places like Mass in all 50.When Wisconsin got Concealed Carry it should have reasoned it would have been a deeply restrictive system like Massachusetts or New Jersey, rather than a fairly liberal Shall Issue.If you're not losing ground, then take some. SHOW me, as your talk is dirt cheap. Hell my talk is dirt cheap!SHOW ME, because its obvious I don't believe you, and I see the majority of Americans see it the same way.