• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

Hint: Think-of-the-children arguments are almost always on the wrong side.
Hint: One of the times when they are not on the wrong side is when the hazard to the children is their actual death.

Think-of-the-children arguments are almost always about vague and subjective hazards, like "loss of innocence" or "causing nightmares", not "death from gunshot wounds".
 
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/scientists-agree-guns-dont-make-society-safer/

Scientists who conduct research on gun violence overwhelmingly agree that firearms make society more dangerous, according to a recent poll conducted by David Hemenway of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Hemenway, an expert on the public health impact of gun violence and director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, recently polled 150 scientists who publish on firearms on their opinions about guns and safety, and wrote about the results in an April 22, 2015 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times. “Scientific consensus isn’t always right, but it’s our best guide to understanding the world,” he explained in the op-ed.

An overwhelming share of the scientists he polled (84%) said that having a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide—which corresponds to scientific evidence on the subject. Most scientists also agreed that a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in that home will be a victim of homicide (72%), and that a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place (64%) rather than a safer place (5%).

“Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns?” Hemenway wrote. “We’re not.”

Read David Hemenway’s Los Angeles Times op-ed: There’s scientific consensus on guns – and the NRA won’t like it

There are numerous studies available online that explain why owning a gun makes it more likely that it will be used against you, rather than used to save your life. All you have to do is read them. I don't like the fact that my husband owns guns, but at least he never carries concealed any longer and considering that we live in an ultra safe neighborhood and have 3 little barking dogs that would warn us if anyone comes near our home, I'm not really worried about him owning guns because I'm sure he will never be in a position where he will attempt to use one. I just don't feel they are necessary and I'm working on encourgaging him to get rid of them. If I were to notice the slightest sign of cognitive decline, I will take the damn guns to the local gun store and take whatever they offer me.

I was taught to use a gun when I was much younger, but other than target shooting a few times, I never felt comfortable using a gun. I know plenty of Southern women who carry concealed. Some are in their 70s and have health problems. One younger woman who I worked with was about 5ft tall and weighed about 95 lbs. She carried a rather high caliber gun. I think these women are a bit nutty. I once had a nursing supervisor who brandished her gun at a man who got into an argument with her over traffic. Brandishing a gun at someone is illegal. It did get the man to leave her alone, but it might not have worked out that way, if the man was nutty enough to try and take her gun away, or if she had shot him when it wasn't clear if he was much of a violent threat. There have been many examples of women having their guns used against them too, and I remember a woman who's toddler took her gun out of her purse and either shot his mom or himself in a Walmart. It was about ten years ago, so I don't remember the details. Atlanta has had so many teenage deaths by guns lately. Why is it so easy for a teenager to get a gun, even if in some cases the guns weren't legally owned? A few months ago, a 2 year old was accidentally killed by a gun that his father had hidden under his pillow. WTF! A lot of people are too stupid to own a gun. A few months before that, a pastor brandished his gun at a robber. The robber took the man's gun and shot him to death. I've also been told if you pull out your gun, you better use it. We're a sick society when it comes to guns!

But wait...I'm not done ranting....

The nuttiest example of an armed person I ever saw, was a frail looking man on 02, using a walker, who looked about 80, openly carrying. He was with his family so maybe he didn't go out alone with that gun, but I did wonder if the man didn't realize how easily someone could knock him down and take his gun. I wondered if he lived alone and thought about the potential danger of such a person owning a gun. But hey! This is America, where anyone with very few exceptions can legally own a gun and in many state they can carry concealed or openly. Thanks to the idiots who wrote the 2nd amendment, we now have far more guns than we do people. Of course, they intended that the constitution would be rewritten or updated on a regular basis like it is in most places. Instead, we have people who value that stupid amendment more than the better parts of the constitution. That's a big problem, imo.

One more....When I lived in NC and was making a home health visit, an elderly man didn't like what I told him about our services. He started yelling at me and I noticed he was wearing a large side arm. I gathered my things and ran out of his house. He yelled that he wasn't going to shoot me, but I certainly wan't going to take a chance. Too many men have lost their tempers and used their guns. I just read this week that one just shot two of his neighbors in Florida over a minor disagreement over the laundry room. After he killed the two neighbors, he told the police he regretted doing that, but he had lost his temper. The shooter was 75 years old. Now two people are dead and he will spend the rest of his life in prison, leaving his wife alone. Was it really worth owning that gun! There are countless examples of the misuse of guns by people who should have never had access to them, imo.

The US now has over 415 million guns. We will never get rid of all of the guns, even if there was a way to ban them, but we can at least ban assault weapons and we can at least regulate gun ownership. I guess that phrase "well regulated" means nothing these days. That won't stop all of the violence, but it will reduce it. I don't understand the gun fetish. I'm not claiming that all gun owners fetishize their guns, but the ones who do are the biggest problem, especially the nut jobs in Congress who have had adds which include family members holding assault weapons, sometimes even making indirect threats to their opponents. It's sick!
 
We have lots of good data on crimes in other countries and can easily compare the crime rates and homicide rates to our own.
If we have the guts.
And we find that the US is an outlier in murder rates but not in other crimes. If anything, we are below average. It's just we have a lot of criminals that kill other criminals.
Because of the out of control proliferation of guns.

Criminals do not just kill other criminals. For obvious examples, please see any of the school shootings, shootings at concerts, malls, places of worship, etc.

Lots of other examples. Those are just the ones that make huge headlines.
And note that I have repeatedly pointed out that self defense cases almost certainly save more people than mass shootings kill, if that were the only criteria they should be legal.
Can we put in the number of deaths that occur at home via accidents with that metric or will we look at the small benefits guns provide and account that in such a way it negates the huge suicide numbers as well as accidental deaths, and the small but admittedly devastating occasional mass shooting?

Or can you just say, for the sake of simplicity, the number of deaths from firearms is saddening, but that toll in human bodies, whether criminals or children dying the arms of their dying teachers, is just an acceptable and within the margin of error for liberty*.
Your side...
My side? The people that want there to be roughly zero mass killings? That is a fucking "side" now?!

Welcome and today on Counterpoint we have two groups of people that will be discussing their feelings on criminal mass killings. To my left are a number of people that strongly believe in the right to bear arms and the liberty it promises. And to me right we have people from the other side.
...keeps citing mass shootings as a big reason to ban guns.
So many people like me that want to do away with firearms that aren't for particular purposes have long given up this idea we'll ever get there. So the best we can do is act in a manner to restrict to access of guns to people with criminal intent. Granted, this wouldn't stop all mass killings, but apparently, people on "my side" have to live with trying to at least reduce the number of mass killings.
If you think there are other reasons, cite them, quit eternally harping on way under 1% of gun deaths. Oops--the solutions you propose won't do much about the other causes.
Loren, I was pretty damn clear with what I said. I just want you and the like to say "The number of deaths from firearms is regrettable and saddening, but that toll in human bodies, whether criminals or children dying the arms of their dying teachers, is an acceptable / within the margin of error issue of our liberty."
 
Your side keeps citing mass shootings as a big reason to ban guns. I'm simply showing that it's not an adequate reason. If you think there are other reasons, cite them, quit eternally harping on way under 1% of gun deaths. Oops--the solutions you propose won't do much about the other causes.
My apologies for having actual human blood in my veins and believe that preventing the horrific deaths of hundreds of school children would be adequate reason to ban assault weapons. Just like we ban containers of shampoo greater than 3.4 oz. on airplanes because...no one died from shampoo in large bottles on airplanes....
You're not addressing my point, just pulling a think-of-the-children argument. Hint: Think-of-the-children arguments are almost always on the wrong side.
It has a tendency of suffering from hyperbole, yes. But in cases like mass school killings and clergy abuse.... not as much. The trouble is, your paranoia wants you to believe that any attempt to manage weapons is an attempt to ban all of them. You are saying that there is nothing we can do to stop these atrocities from occurring.
 
LP whines about one of the few "what about the children " type arguments while continuously (and I mean like every 3rd fucking idiotic post) using "if you can't fix everything then you don't get to fix anything" idiocy.

So yeah, let's fix what we can, how we can.
 
I understand that change is hard and scary.

I'm fucking sick of the whine from conservatives who complain that people use 'what about the children' as a reason ...for anything. To spend money, to have a safe and healthy environment, to have safety measures in consumer goods. To limit the access of firearms in order to prevent deaths.

As of 2020, more children die each year from gun violence than from car accidents. We do a lot of things to prevent car accidents and to make cars more safe: child safety seats, seat belts! speed limits, automobile design! traffic control! Lots of things.

What do we do to prevent children from dying from gunshot wounds? We talk.

Between 2000 and 2020, 31,780 children died from gunshot wounds.

U.S. CHILD DEATHS (AGES 0-17) DUE TO FIREARMS AND MOTOR VEHICLE CRASHES, 2010-2020​


Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Underlying Cause of Death 1999-2020,” CDC WONDER Online Database, accessed May 25, 2022.

U.S. Child Deaths (Ages 0-17) Due to Firearms and Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010-2020-02
 
Your side keeps citing mass shootings as a big reason to ban guns. I'm simply showing that it's not an adequate reason. If you think there are other reasons, cite them, quit eternally harping on way under 1% of gun deaths. Oops--the solutions you propose won't do much about the other causes.
My apologies for having actual human blood in my veins and believe that preventing the horrific deaths of hundreds of school children would be adequate reason to ban assault weapons. Just like we ban containers of shampoo greater than 3.4 oz. on airplanes because...no one died from shampoo in large bottles on airplanes....
You're not addressing my point, just pulling a think-of-the-children argument. Hint: Think-of-the-children arguments are almost always on the wrong side.
Yeah. If we couldn’t keep Pluto as a planet why do we think we can ban guns that kill school children?
 
Children's deaths tend to have a more visceral effect
I mean, not for social conservatives usually... Once they're out of the womb, they're not society's problem anymore.
Don't be trite. You would class me as socially conservative and yet they need to be looked after.
 
Your side keeps citing mass shootings as a big reason to ban guns. I'm simply showing that it's not an adequate reason. If you think there are other reasons, cite them, quit eternally harping on way under 1% of gun deaths. Oops--the solutions you propose won't do much about the other causes.
An inadequate reason is better than no reason.
How many mass shootings or deaths do you think would be an adequate reason for you to consider than allowing any Tom, Dick or Mary to own a gun may have adverse or unwanted side-effects?
You're taking it as a given that you're right. Saying it's "inadequate" is basically saying it's wrong.
With the amount of people who die each year in the US from gunshot wounds, yes I am right.

Bloody hell Loren - what numbers of deaths is acceptable to you and others each year for the privilege of knaves and fools wandering around thinking they are king Dick?
If hundreds of needless and unnecessary deaths each year is an inadequate reason it still buries "we cannot do anything about it" whinge.
 
I understand that change is hard and scary.

I'm fucking sick of the whine from conservatives who complain that people use 'what about the children' as a reason ...for anything. To spend money, to have a safe and healthy environment, to have safety measures in consumer goods. To limit the access of firearms in order to prevent deaths.

As of 2020, more children die each year from gun violence than from car accidents. We do a lot of things to prevent car accidents and to make cars more safe: child safety seats, seat belts! speed limits, automobile design! traffic control! Lots of things.

What do we do to prevent children from dying from gunshot wounds? We talk.

Between 2000 and 2020, 31,780 children died from gunshot wounds.

U.S. CHILD DEATHS (AGES 0-17) DUE TO FIREARMS AND MOTOR VEHICLE CRASHES, 2010-2020​


Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Underlying Cause of Death 1999-2020,” CDC WONDER Online Database, accessed May 25, 2022.

U.S. Child Deaths (Ages 0-17) Due to Firearms and Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010-2020-02
This is even more bizarre when you consider a child in eastern Ukraine has less chance of dying by a bullet or shrapnel wound than a child in some parts of the glorious US
 
I understand that change is hard and scary.

I'm fucking sick of the whine from conservatives who complain that people use 'what about the children' as a reason ...for anything. To spend money, to have a safe and healthy environment, to have safety measures in consumer goods. To limit the access of firearms in order to prevent deaths.


Don't lump all "conservatives" in that particular bucket.
 
Children's deaths tend to have a more visceral effect
I mean, not for social conservatives usually... Once they're out of the womb, they're not society's problem anymore.
Don't be trite. You would class me as socially conservative and yet they need to be looked after.
I can be as trite as I like. I do give a shit about children, and dislike those who regard abusing or killing children for their parents' crimes or some other reason as a necessary evil, or worse, just not caring one way or the other. This puts me at odds with both of our war-loving major political parties on a regular basis, but it is obvious to all that when more subtle forms of evil come along, like cancelling TANF or school lunches or science education that doesn't come from a Bible or sensible gun legislation or the basic rights of underage prisoners, a conservative politician is always leading the charge.
 
Hint: Think-of-the-children arguments are almost always on the wrong side.
Hint: One of the times when they are not on the wrong side is when the hazard to the children is their actual death.

Think-of-the-children arguments are almost always about vague and subjective hazards, like "loss of innocence" or "causing nightmares", not "death from gunshot wounds".
I'm thinking more of the if-it-can-save-one-child arguments frequently put forth for things where the costs far exceed the benefits.
 
I understand that change is hard and scary.

I'm fucking sick of the whine from conservatives who complain that people use 'what about the children' as a reason ...for anything. To spend money, to have a safe and healthy environment, to have safety measures in consumer goods. To limit the access of firearms in order to prevent deaths.

I hear the children argument more often from the left than the right.

As of 2020, more children die each year from gun violence than from car accidents. We do a lot of things to prevent car accidents and to make cars more safe: child safety seats, seat belts! speed limits, automobile design! traffic control! Lots of things.

What do we do to prevent children from dying from gunshot wounds? We talk.

Between 2000 and 2020, 31,780 children died from gunshot wounds.
Check the ages. You'll find most of those "children" are nearly adults--gangbangers.
 
I hear the children argument more often from the left than the right.
What you hear might not be representative, but it seems to me too that the right has abandoned the WATC trope.
Check the ages. You'll find most of those "children" are nearly adults--gangbangers.
Oh. Well, in that case … never mind.
We should probably look closer at the data though - might want to segregate out the 4 and under babybangers too.
 
Back
Top Bottom