Curious George
Veteran Member
Well that is a factor of 0 to 11 that you just posted. But sure, you can call it 10-100. Are you sure it is dishonest to paint your statistics quoting as dishonest?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Last February, Trump signed a bill making it easier for people with mental illness to buy guns
- Thread starter Skipper
- Start date
This is a massive distortion of the resolution and its affect.
1)The resolution doesn’t let dangerously mentally ill persons to get weapons. Other existing laws preclude that.
2)Obama’s midnight hour Executive action denied people due process. A doctor alone, without court adjudication, would put people on the registry.
3)Obama’s Executive action criminalized the mentally ill themselves and not their actions.
1)The resolution doesn’t let dangerously mentally ill persons to get weapons. Other existing laws preclude that.
2)Obama’s midnight hour Executive action denied people due process. A doctor alone, without court adjudication, would put people on the registry.
3)Obama’s Executive action criminalized the mentally ill themselves and not their actions.
This is exactly what gun control is trying to do! By and large it’s not about banning all guns. It’s about implementing some common sense safety precautions.
To get your DOT license, you need to have a physical. Why not for guns, and add a psychological assessment as well?
To drive a school bus you need to be trained and obtain a license. Why not mandatory training and licensing for gun ownership?
To drive a schoolbus, you need to pass a background check. Why aren’t background checks for gun buyers universally required and easy to do?
Let’s get serious about gun safety in this country.
Gun safety is far far more than knowing what is safe or not.
It's deeply ingrained habits, which must be automatic even when lax, stressed or distracted.
The accidents I know of, even with very experienced users, all trace back to lack of the fundamentals.
So training means a lot of time on a range with very strict discipline. Unfortunately, this demands
much time, & could be unfair to some who'd benefit from guns for self defense or hunting.
But this unfairness & inconvenience would (IMO) offer greater overall benefit. Courts should
find that this comports with the 2nd Amendment.
Except driving is a privilege while gun ownership is is a right. Besides buying a gun isn’t the same being the one that uses it. Why can’t a physically disabled person own a gun that he keeps for others to use on his behalf? Your analogy is misstated. There is no physical required to own a motor vehicle.
Last edited:
Why don’t we arm school employees and teachers? They arm guards at banks and those guards are just guarding money not something as precious as our children.
Why don’t we spread the students among smaller facilities instead of concentrating them into larger easier targets?
Why don’t we spread the students among smaller facilities instead of concentrating them into larger easier targets?
Analogies are never 100%.
The point is that we regulate many things for safety and guns should be no exception. The other point was that the “safety precautions” are much more similar to what gun-control proponents are asking for than a “gun ban” ala the “transportation ban” in the post I responded to.
As for guns being a right, I do not see basic safety precautions as detrimental to that right. Even speech has its restrictions.
Is every bank teller armed? No, because that’s not their job.
Guns sold are quite safe when used as designed for legal purposes. The problem isn’t the gun. It is their misuse that is the problem.
Um, I think you will find many, if not most, bank guards are armed. If you don’t believe me just go into a bank carrying a gun and see what happens.
Yes, the guards. Because that’s their job. I was asking about the bank tellers.
Yes, I’m sure if we had an unregulated transportation system that it would be the users fault for all the traffic accidents as well. Cars don’t drive themselves! But the point is that users tend to misuse and cannot be trusted to self-regulate.
I don't recall ever seeing a bank guard.
And when I enter a bank with a gun, no one notices.
(Of course, that's because they can't see it.)
Nor am I suggesting arming all teachers but merely allowing those that choose to arm themselves to be allowed to do so.
Statistically speaking, having a gun in your Home greatly raises your chances of being shot.
I sorta feel like guns in schools will have the same effect. For every mass shooting they may prevent, how many accidental discharges? How many trigger happy teachers? How many deranged kids who, in a fit of anger or premeditated plan, grab their teachers gun to perform their own killing spree?
Im not wholly against it. But I think it’s a trite and ultimately unhelpful solution to the real problems here. It’s a bandaid for the symptom but it doesn’t treat the disease.
While it's difficult to address statistics not sourced,
do you know if they address the level of training?
I propose that those teachers who want to be armed
receive extensive training.
No, you are correct. The data shows a factor of 4 to 10 concerning homicide. I made a mistake quoting that but it was clearly answered by the actual statistics which I reported.
The facts still show that US is still behind other Western nations. Of course guns play a role in such factors. Why wouldn't it? Killing a person is the definition of homicide. If one wanted to efficiently kill other people, one only has to use a gun. It's the proper deduction. Do we really need science to prove that?
Even by a factor of 4, we should consider that much worst. That's saying for every 25 people murdered elsewhere we have 100 people murdered in the United States. It shows the same correlation of strict gun laws with less homicides and less gun violence. And the counter example has and always been the US, with the counter correlation of loose guns laws to homicides and gun violence.
I grow tired of your accusations of dishonesty especially when I'm willing to draw actual statistics from even the categories that you bring. You haven't brought forth any statistics to prove any of your points. Only opinions to try to discredit the statistics brought forth by independent studies. Where is your justification outside of your labels and opinions? Using opinions without proper statistics is a ploy to try discredit others when one can't simply justify their position. Go ahead. Do bring in some studies, research, anything to suggest owning guns improve the public's safety against homicides and especially gun violence.
What does it matter what level of training when the laws do not enforce the level of training required to own a gun.
I would support the gun control measures to force gun owners more training and, especially, evaluations.
Your question doesn't support the current US system. It's a hypothetical that would support tighter gun control.
Also, do teachers have to arm themselves now? Is that part of the solution?
The solution is to have every organization be armed like if they're police or military, right?
Curious George
Veteran Member
There are certainly things you can do. The question is why do these things? There is a difference between making more hoops to jump through and actually addressing what you see as a problem. Unless people getting guns is what you see as a problem
But that is similar to me saying that people having the ability to drive is the problem when the bus crashes.
Your first suggestion would likely run foul of privacy laws. Medical information is protected by addition acts like hipaa laws. Getting a job is different than owning a gun.
Mandatory training and licensing is something that can and would have to be enacted at the state level. It could not be cost prohibitive. And it would have to be a license to purchase or carry not a license to own.
Setting up an easy background check is certainly a possibility. But what problem are you trying to address here? People with felonies or domestic abuse purchasing guns? If that is the specific issue, how great is that problem? I assume by universally, you don't mean to include private party sales or gifts.
Curious George
Veteran Member
But I needn't prove that guns improve the public safety. I only need show they are not a causal factor with regard to death rates.
Suggesting that I am failing to bring statistics to the table doesn't mean that I was wrong. When you looked at intentional homicide rates did you find that I was off?
You are discussing "The facts still show that US is still behind other Western nations," yet I noticed you included Japan which certainly has one of the lowest homicide rates and is not a western country.
Remove them and my 0-5 number is really close. (Nevermind, it was already much closer than your 10-100). Still, somehow I am wrong because I didn't link it? This is not a published paper I am writing. I questioned your use of gun deaths in order to make the claim that decreasing guns would decrease murder. That fact is not substantiated. Decreasing guns will decrease gun deaths. It will not necessarily reduce homicide rates or total death rates.
But would you like me to give examples of countries with stricter gun laws and more deaths? Or does the fact that we are not talking about some great factor of reduced deaths or homicides make this more apparent to you?