The problem is the bad guys already have guns and gun owners don't believe for a second that any entity on earth will protect us from them if we give up our guns. Which, because we are the ones that follow the rules, we will be the only ones, and that doesn't work. Anybody like the woods and mountains? I do, and I take a big gun.
Fishing? Revolver with rat shot.
Deer hunting I need a rifle
Shotgun for birds
That's 4 different guns and I haven't gotten to home or self defense.
Cold dead hands
Fueled by Caffeine said:bobzilla said:gearheadmb said:That's the problem with guns, they just make killing so convenient.They also make stopping the threat easier as well.
Statistically. There is no threat. It's made up to sell you guns.
buut heart disease is kills 20x people as guns per year in this country. That's a bigger threat. Now to the treadmills!!!
cars kill less people than guns are they a threat?
If there is no threat, why are we having this discussion? It was sparked by a mass shooting incident, no? I would like to poke a hole in your argument, good sir. If there is no threat, how did this discussion even get it's start? The threat is there, always. No, I'm not saying everyone is out to get you. What I am saying, however, is that my business is in a less than pristine part of town, where people have been under threat and have even lost their lives in the last few years. I routinely have $5,000-10,000 in cash on the premises. For some less than scrupulous persons, that is more than enough money to come attempt to take it, forcibly. Is there still no threat? Or, perhaps, we view the word threat differently?
In reply to E_NinjA :
I think he was just making a comment about statistics. Perhaps??
In reply to E_NinjA :
bob said something about guns being needed to stop threats. But statistically there are no threats greater to your life than heart disease. Seems disengenuois to ignore one major threat to your life but only concentrate on another.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
Right. Except this thread is not about heart disease.
The threat we are discussing is gun violence. Bob's comment was valid.
Thats like saying "Let's tear the seatbelts out of cars, because heart disease is a greater threat".
To come full circle, statistically the greatest threat to children is guns.
ProDarwin said:To come full circle, statistically the greatest threat to children is guns.
Correct.
But no one has offered any details on what that means, and any strategy to combat school shootings would be completely different than a strategy to reduce firearm accidents.
So again, it's meaningless data. I'm pretty confident it is data that is twisted for a political agenda.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
Yep. I find it incredibly ironic that my cousin is always packing. He is always packing a gun, and always packing his lip with tobacco. Sometimes he's packing a pack of cigs too. It boggles the mind that he's scared of getting shot by someone, but not scared of cancer.
Of course, the other side of the argument is that aside from second hand smoke and Covid, other people don't present any risk of heart disease towards me. If it happens it is entirely self inflicted or because of genetics. Meanwhile, other people pose a risk of gun violence to me simply by owning one.
I'm calling BS on "guns are the greatest threat to children".
Here is an article that shares SOME details from the study (but is still grossly lacking):
Current causes of death in children and adolescents
At a glance, the following things jump out of the article to me:
- They are calling 18 and 19 year old adults "children". That's misleading.
- It's a COMPARISON to automobiles (which were being driven less in 2019-2020 due to COVID)
- Children under the age of 1 are excluded from the study. That means young children who died in vehicles were not included, but it also means those same young children were unlikely to be a firearm statistic (because 1 year olds can't hold a gun). Excluding children under 1 in a comparison of auto deaths to firearm related deaths also skews the results.
- The article specifically notes that the vast majority of kids killed with guns are NOT killed in mass shootings
- The rate for black or African American is 4X the rate for whites (even though they are only 13% of the population). That's awful.
- The incident rate is also higher for Hispanics than Whites.
- Firearm related deaths for children (age 1-19) increased 29.5% in 2019-2020. Drug overdose and poisoning increased by 83.6% for the same group in the same period. Why no concern about drugs and poisoning?
NOTE: 2 facts seem to be avoided in that article:
1- There is no age breakdown. When they say "firearms are the leading cause of death in children", they shouldn't avoid the age breakdown. If half of those that died are under the age of 10, we are gonna feel very different than if 90% of those that died are between the ages of 18-19
2- There is no correlation to mass shootings. The actual statistics of how many children died in mass shooting incidents is avoided. But the article was released in May of 2022, clearly implying it has something to do with mass shootings.
BOTH of these issues are misleading, and appear to be manipulating the data for political gain.
Here is how I read that article:
We made kids stay home because of COVID. That reduced vehicle deaths (less driving), but also increased mental health issues. This led to an increase in firearms related deaths (35% of "child" firearm deaths were suicide). The mental stress kids faced increased both firearms incidents AND drug and poisoning incidents. The terrible imbalance among races probably points to violent incidents in inner cities, and since we are including older teens in the statistic, it also likely includes crime and gang related firearm incidents. I don't see evidence in that study that says anything about mass shootings. More likely, increased incidents of home firearm accidents, gang violence, and mental stresses created from trauma from a national health crisis.
So, no. I don't buy it. It is factual, but carefully constructed to communicate a message which is not entirely accurate.
I am very concerned about increased gun violence, and want to see changes. But distorted statistics that basically say "OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN" is absolutely the wrong way to handle the problem.
In reply to SV reX :
The big issue is that firearms research is effectively blocked by lawmakers. So all the data we get is very imperfect. So yes. You're right all the statistics are skewed becuse impartial third parties(CDC) are banned from studies. I believe a of these discussions are completely useless with solid data and I don't think we are there yet. We're in the feelings hopes and beliefs stage.
Looks like those who get tbt Lobby money don't want this studied
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/29/1039907305/cdc-study-toll-guns-america
Justjim75Cold dead hands
This absolutist line of reasoning will eventually backfire quite badly. Always does.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
Your logic is circular.
You are saying third party agencies like the CDC don't have accurate information, but you are quoting the CDC and saying "guns are the leading killer of kids".
Shall we discount their info, or recognize it?
In reply to SV reX :
We should recognize the number of kids who died via gunshot wounds. Thst is a fact. Buuuuttt what we don't know is the how, why or where or what we can do to stop it. Which is the part CDC is banned from studying.
You could have answered that question yourself had you read the linked npr article.
Edit becuse I want to point this out. now your discussion about the assumptions of the study linked. It's valid to challenge such assumptions or data inclusions etc. but the line of reasoning you are pushing is akin to the "you can't describe this specific part of a specific gun " argument used by the nra to discount people who speak about guns or gun violence. It's the " it's not an assault rifle " or "it's a semi automatic rifle not automatic " garbage that does nothing to add to the conversation but only try to belittle the speaker.
I'm not sure that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the appropriate entity to study firearms fatalities, unless we really are going to attribute these deaths to "lead poisoning."
1988RedT2 said:I'm not sure that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the appropriate entity to study firearms fatalities, unless we really are going to attribute these deaths to "lead poisoning."
It would be really beneficial to learn more about gun ownership and how it relates to suicide rates and how to fix it.
but naaaaaa we don't want to study that.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
I agree that we should be concerned about kids dying from gunshot wounds.
I am uncomfortable with your assertion that they are "kids" (some are clearly adults), and your statements like "guns kill kids", and "guns are the leading killer of kids" (both of which appear to be distorted facts)
And I am uncomfortable having a discussion about changes that can be made to avoid mass shootings that is quoting information that is about suicides, accidents, and home incidents.
It's totally disingenuous.
If the problem is mass shootings, let's talk about potential solutions. If the problem is inadequate protections and storage of firearms at home, let's talk about potential solutions to that.
If the problem is distorted and misleading "facts" and "studies", then we should be able to talk about solutions to that.
Mixing all the statistics together is misleading.
In reply to SV reX :
I don't think we can have a solid discussion until the facts and the studies are completed and laid out before us. Inside this stupid echo chamber all we do is talk about beliefs and feelings. Beliefs and feelings can get people to vote for you but they sure make bad decision points. One side of this debate will call the data distorted drive fear and then push people to buy more guns . Ever wonder why so many major gun manufacturers are owned by hedge and PE firms. It's a pump and dump business model built up feelings and beliefs.
Ah, OK, I was wondering about that "guns are the leading cause of death for children". It does sound hard to believe, but I have seen (as noted) that it looks to include up to 18 (which is bit of inappropriate abbreviation, because it looks like the study title even mentions Adolescents), which is not really what most people think of when they think of as "children".
That stat (study) seems about as useful as the "shootings in schools" stat. If either of those stats where controlled for something like Gang Related Activity (a bit hard to codify I know), you would likely get a wildly different statistic (I suspect a vast majority of them are) and of course likely have a different approach to reducing that statistic. As note previously: You cannot change what you cannot measure (i.e. if you measure the wrong thing, you may fix the wrong "problem").
They both are good lessons in "truth" though. Both are technically true, but very deceptive in what people will think they mean. If you mention a child killed by a gun at school, most will think of a grade schooler sitting in a class room, not a 17 year old gang banger getting revenge in the parking lot after school because he was "dissed".
To be fair, the "walk into school campus and randomly shooting students" problem and the "gang bangers shooting each other and innocent bystanders" are both horrible issues, but generally, there is a LOT more focus and attention on one, and a LOT more death with the other. Not to imply that they both are not super important issues, but they do likely require rather different approaches (unless you can magically make a lot of guns disappear, which as noted, just isn't going to happen)
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
I have heart disease. Quadruple bypass 21 years ago. I don't ignore it.
I also have guns.
I agree the definition of Children there is a bit misleading. How about this?
"Guns are the leading cause of death for Humans in the US less than 20 years old"
I'm not sure that really changes much.
M2Pilot said:In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
I have heart disease. Quadruple bypass 21 years ago. I don't ignore it.
I also have guns.
I bought a fire extinguisher after my house burnt down
hello fellow gun owner.
ProDarwin said:"Guns are the leading cause of death for Humans in the US less than 20 years old"
I'm not even sure that this is any better, at all. This, in fact, just lumps more people in. I don't have the time or know how to do the research, but I'm curious what the leading cause of death is for those say, ages 10-16 and 17-20. I think, for the most part, this discussion is not about 3rd and 4th graders as much as it is about young men(mostly) who are of adequate age that they should be able to responsibly understand what a firearm is and does.
Here's a summary of the last 20 pages of this thread for the tldr folks:
Almost everyone: we need facts and data to have this discussion, otherwise we are just going from emotions and beliefs.
Somebody: here is some data.
Somebody else: that data is clearly flawed - you need to throw it entirely out and listen to my emotions and beliefs instead.
Repeat.
The flawed data argument is so ubiquitous in "debates" that REM should write a song about it.
In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :
Yeah, well, your entire premise is flawed! 
In all seriousness, the data that is available is getting picked, massaged and presented to support a viewpoint. This happens for more topics than gun control and gun violence.
In addition, the data we do have isn't complete. Honest actors from either side of the argument should be able to see and recognize this.
So, yeah. It's difficult to form conclusions with incomplete data.
Fueled by Caffeine said:M2Pilot said:In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
I have heart disease. Quadruple bypass 21 years ago. I don't ignore it.
I also have guns.
I bought a fire extinguisher after my house burnt down
hello fellow gun owner.
My father in law has always tried to lead a healthy lifestyle. Eat right. exercise. Don't smoke. But he had a quintuple bypass. Why? Genetics. He has a fairly common heart disease that has small veins and areteries around hte heart plus a rare issue where the body takes green vegetables and creates cholesterol to clog those little veins and areteries. So your snark there is not appreciated and once again not necessary nor helpful.
You'll need to log in to post.
