Why don't people call for controls on......

RWSmith

Why don't people call for controls on recreational boats and pools?  3500 children are drowned each year.  That's twice as many as are killed by guns.  Will more controls make careless people more careful?  I propose that the REAL problem behind shootings are the culture of violence and death that has taken over the psyche of too many people.  Violence and death are glorified as well as people being desensitized to it.  I was raised with violence, but the difference is that I knew, even as a young person, that violence WASN'T a good thing. We played army, then did something else.  Violence is being hammered into people's heads so hard that they can't help but be obsessed with it. People really need to broaden their horizons beyond video games, TV and what people are saying about them on social networks.

robertp

Thanks for your question and welcome to Gun Control Forums.  Usually when you here of pool or boat deaths it involves one person.  Lately the shootings have been multiple deaths. I think people are more sensitized to gun deaths for that reason.  I think that sensitivity is what clouds our minds from making clear decisions about remedies to violence.

ianagmdc

To answer your question about boats and pools; because 3500 children are not deliberately held underwater until they drown. Whereas 11,000 plus people are deliberately shot dead by guns each year. As for the rest of your post I agree 100% and then some. 

robertp

I think to make an accurate/educated comparison we have to consider # of pools to # of pool deaths and # of guns to # of gun deaths or deaths from people with pools VS  deaths from people with guns but then we would have to start banning people :-).  

I guess there are too many things to consider.  I don't have a pool but I do carry a gun.  I figure most people  with guns are not criminals so the more guns the more back-up I have against criminals.

ianagmdc

I have had to think long and hard on how to respond to this last post. First i thought that it was insensitive  for the initial poster to bring 3500 accidental child drownings into a gun debate. Can you imagine how the parents of those 3500 children would feel upon seeing this. On the orther hand the post seems to trivialize the gravity of the 1400 children who 'were' killed by guns. Imagine how those parents would feel. I assume that the poster did not mean to come accross that way but that was the impression that I took away.

The bottom line is that I've seen many uses of deflection in the gun debate. I just thought that this particular one crossed a line.

What made it even worse was the response I recieved when I pointed out the obvious flaw in the comparision. It was deflection writ large, while seeming to me as being insensitive to both to both statistics. Again I know that that was not the intent. It just came across that way to me; the smiley face not withstanding.

robertp

        As far as
women go, more and more women are getting their conceal carry weapon permits to
protect themselves.  I think more because
of kidnappers and rapists.  I think a lot
of women have a fear of reporting their companions to the police.  They (or anybody) need a place they can go to
talk about their fears and situations.  I
saw a student in Florida, where they had the mass shootings wants to start a
reachout app where students can share their thoughts and fears.  I think this is an excellent idea.  I wonder if we can do something like that on
this forum.

         As far as the
incident in the liquor store it sounds like a not so good situation to be
in.  The only thing I would have done
differently was find another liquor store to get my bottle and after, that have
a few bears.  Seriously I would have to
do some fast thinking to find out if my life was in danger.   If it was I would have no choice but to draw
my weapon and shoot because I would have nothing to lose.   My training has taught me that your type of
situation is usually not life threatening because the criminals usually are
just trying to get their money and leave. 
It is best not to shoot or kill someone if you can avoid it and are not
in danger of extreme bodily harm or death.

ianagmdc

In an average month, 50 American women are shot to death by intimate partners. Many more are injured by guns.

Nearly 1 million women alive today have been shot, or shot at, by an intimate partner.

About 4.5 million American women alive today have been threatened with a gun by an intimate partner.

https://everytownresearch.org/guns-domestic-violence/

The abusers were partners, not kidnappers or rapists. "They need a place to talk about their fears and situations." Are you kidding me? They need group therapy? What, are they supposed to be more understanding of their abusers? 

About my experience. What I experienced was terrifying. It is not for you to say that it was "not life threatening" according to YOUR training. Two men spun around and pointed loaded guns at me. You think that was not life threatening? Trust me, you would have felt that your life was in danger and yet it would have been a very bad idea to engage in a gun fight.

You missed my whole point of my relating my story. The point being that you choose fear and I choose to not live my life in fear. I am not doubting that you may have your reasons, but I have lived the actual experience and still choose not to let it rule my life.

 

daddkis

On the subject of gun control, as with anything boats cars electricity handtools. The common factor here is humans, guns are tools in the wrong hands they can be misused, dont punish the people that handle there responsibilty the way they should, are we gonna outlaw cars, boats, power tools etc.

ianagmdc

How exactly would you be punished by sensible gun laws? 

PUNISH: M-W Dictionary

to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation: 

to inflict a penalty for the commission of (an offense) in retribution or retaliation: 

to inflict injury on.

daddkis

You assume that this goverment will impose sensible gun laws, they cant even agree on how to fund the government

ianagmdc

I assume nothing of governments. I'm just going on the fact that most Americans favor sensible gun laws and they do not feel that such laws are punishing anyone. 

robertp

The sensible gun laws are already in place.  The problem is criminals are breaking those laws. Nothing gets accomplished so the antis try to punish gun owners by making nonsense laws and convinving people they are trying to do something to stop violence.

tangascootac

@ianagmdc: "Sensible gun laws" (by what definition of "sensible?") already exist to the tune of nearly 20,000 federal, state & local statutes in the US; firearms are one of the more regulated commodities here, but enforcement of many, many of them is either lax or nonexistent.

ianagmdc

By what definition?  My definition would be banning military weaponry. That alone would save aprox 200 to 250 lives a year (including one of four who are children). Is that to much to ask?  Very few people are calling for an out right ban on guns (certainly not me). 

ianagmdc

By what definition?  My definition would be banning military weaponry. That alone would save aprox 200 to 250 lives a year (including one of four who are children). Is that to much to ask?  Very few people are calling for an out right ban on guns (certainly not me). 

ianagmdc

By what definition?  My definition would be banning military weaponry. That alone would save aprox 200 to 250 lives a year (including one of four who are children). Is that to much to ask?  Very few people are calling for an out right ban on guns (certainly not me). 

ianagmdc

Sorry for repeated posts. I kept getting error message that my post could not be submitted, so I kept hitting the "Post Comment" button. Didn't realize that it was in fact being posted.

tangascootac

@ianagmdc:  'Military weaponry?'  I'm unable to cite a single instance of a firearm designed for any branch of our armed forces which has been utilized in a civilian homicide, and you cannot identify one either. 

robertp

ianagmdc  Could you please clarify.  Did you mean military style weapons which are made to look like military weapons, weapons that are used by soldier, someplace where civilians can buy military weapons or something else. 

higgsb

Guns lead to fatalities; if there weren't so many guns, there wouldn't be so many homicides.

There is no denying that.

Consider it the price we pay for freedom.

tangascootac

@higgsb:  Denying the accuracy of your assertion is pretty simple, for at least eleven other countries have a higher homicide rate than the US per 100,000 population.

robertp

@higgsb:  None of my guns ever lead to a fatality or homicide.  I think you meant less criminals with guns would lead to less fatalities and homicides That is totally different.  If you didn't mean that please explain.

Afreenish

With all the recent heat and tragedy associated with guns in our society today, it’s a rather unfortunate, yet important topic to discuss. Gun violence, gun control, and whether people kill people or whether guns kill people seems to be today’s pressing issues. These are the topics that have been plaguing gun owners, parents, and our society as a whole for a while now. In Sheila Kaplan’s, “Congress Quashed Research Into Gun Violence. Since Then, 600,000 People Have Been Shot” she discusses our government’s obvious political struggle with the tiresome “will they, won’t they” attitude towards gun control research and legislation. Seeming to dismiss the government, and wanting research back in the picture, Kaplan makes her views very prevalent as to what she would like to see. But it seems that there are things left out of the picture that might be of interest to her argument that the government isn’t doing enough. Kaplan starts the beginning of her argument strong, providing ponderings of children and safety with handling and holding a gun in the house. Kaplan brings her argument to a personal, deep level with bringing up childhood death in response to keeping a gun in the house. A study done in Pediatrics found that between 2012 and 2014 that almost 1,300 children were killed and almost 6,000 others injured by guns kept in their own home (Sofer 14). All this hurt and suffering, Kaplan claims, could have been prevented by the government providing funding into gun violence research. Yet, she forgets to point out the truth behind these deaths. Of these 1,300 children, the majority are involved in homicide. About half (53%) of these cases of death are homicidal incidents (Sofer 14). It is not documented whether the gun was in possession by the homeowner or not. This makes her rebuttal mute, however compelling, that guns in a home are the reason these children are dead. That these children had accidentally shot themselves opposed to the reality that the gun was being fired at them, not by them. That isn’t to say, however, that there aren’t suicides by gun. There is a significant suicide rate that was recorded. About 38% of the 1,300 deaths was a suicide (Sofer 14). So, while Kaplan might be on to a rising dilemma between owning a gun in the house and the rise of childhood suicide and death by firearm, these recent studies have shown that it isn’t to the exact extent she makes it out to be. Nevertheless, her argument is terrifying and serious to consider. Something that should be a cause of concern and we should truly worry about.The basis of the argument, that Congress won’t fund this research, is legitimate, however, there are options that the government can take in funding them. The government has options for this problem that they have not considered. Stated by Jen Christenson of CNN, the government could take money from domestic violence research or youth violence and see how a gun could affect that circumstance and fun research that way (Christensen). She also suggested that Congress could make a special exception for gun control and create funding (Christensen). And these claims seem reasonable if you look at them. Guns and gun violence have become a national epidemic and therefore should be handled with more care. By specifying funds, there is no lack of research going into the original circumstance, this being youth and domestic violence, but there is also that special element of adding the favored gun research to it as well. It kills two birds with one stone. This, however, is unlikely. It seems to many that the government is more interested in politics than actually doing anything about gun control or passing any laws. Christenson quotes John Hopkins professor Webster, “‘Nobody wants to anger the gun lobby…” (Christensen). The government will always be in favor of being a mediator between two arguing parties than be the influencer to make a difference. And, unfortunately, it seems that this political battle is the one that is going to win. There will always be appeasement to both sides that takes precedence and will always win the fight. Which means that the government will not fund gun research. Even though the government has the power to do something, they would rather be diplomatic and side with not doing anything and let the problem settle itself. Another large aspect of Kaplan’s claim is the need for further funding and money that should be put into the research. Kaplan is right in the sense that most have stopped research on the topic. Laws such as The Dickey Amendment, which is used to stop all funding to researchers who want to perform studies on gun control advocacy, have “[scared] federal agencies into thinking twice about even collecting data that might reflect badly on gun ownership,” (Kaplan). That does not mean that private investments and state governments cannot be made to fund this topic’s research. As proven by California legislation when they decided to fund such a program. In 2016, included into the new state budget was $5 million dollars allotted through five years of research into gun violence (Tarran 6). So, it isn’t like nobody isn’t doing anything. Someone is obviously trying to make some changes. The inclusion of this element could bring awareness to her piece that Kaplan hadn’t even thought about. By stating California’s actions, Kaplan could have been drawing in support and further pressuring our government to continue this research that Kaplan begs for so fervently. What Sheila Kaplan is doing is arguing for the gun control funding that is obviously lacking after the events of all the horrendous and atrocious events of the past couple of years have brought. Her argument, while compelling, lacks some vital elements. Setting a good example is always the first step for others to follow the lead. Bringing up California would have only made her argument more strong. If people see one person doing the right thing, in theory, others will only want more. Her striking examples of child deaths, while devastating and disturbing, aren’t all that straightforward either. Most of those incidents were not inflicted by a gun in the home. And while there were incidents of suicide by gun, it was far less than what Kaplan made it out to be. The whole point of this article is to bring awareness to why and how the people should bring gun research back into play. It’s important for our youth, our people, and our country. After everything seen and done, it’s the least the government could do.

robertp

Afreenish So what type of gun research do you want to see be done.  Maybe we can get some research done here. 

tangascootac

@afreenish: Following Sandy Hook, Obama put the CDC back into the business of researching the causes & effects of crime involving firearms utilized as defensive weapons in the home, anticipating that the results would affirm the left's contention that guns kept at home created a dangerous situation which was a threat to all residents, particularly children. When the report was completed and the results supplied to the White House, the conclusions reached by the CDC researchers & investigators were essentially the opposite of that which Obama had expected to see.  And since the data suggested that the NRA was essentially correct regarding firearms kept in a domestic setting as well as discrediting other democrat-supported initiatives, the study was quickly suppressed --- i.e., it was buried.