By Freedom States Alliance
, Working to Prevent Gun Violence
-
December 08, 2008
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Apples V Oranges?
Yes, It is Apples vs. Oranges
Pottering,
You miss my point on this. It has nothing to do with the specific breakdown of ages, simply with the fact that the argument that whoever wrote the article above is making can be easily applied to small children and... Anything! Small children have a high mortality rate regardless of what the actual cause of death is. Before I go any further, I want to make sure that everyone knows I am not speaking simply from some callous statistical standpoint with no real horse in the race, so to speak. I have three children, all under the age of 5 years, so this very much concerns me.
I am simply making the argument that if we decide we need to ban guns, or even restrict their use by people who have small children then we need to ban just about everything we do in life. There is no way to ensure a child will make to their 18th birthday no matter what you do, but we can, as an intelligent people, make decisions that will assist and aide them in getting there. I argue that while many people say keep guns away from kids at all time, this is dead wrong, literally! I would hypothesize that most of the firearm related deaths of children could be avoided with education and familiarization. My four year old (almost five) knows that Daddy has four guns, he knows what they are and how they work, and he knows not to touch them. Through arduous training and discipline, my son knows that he is not to touch ANY gun unless Daddy gives the okay first, including toy guns. This way we avoid even the common mistake where a child picks up a small polymer gun thinking it is a toy and ends up a tragic headline. I will work with my other, smaller children on this when their comprehension skills can handle it.
I want to stress that I do NOT believe that all people should have guns. Frankly speaking, there are many people who should not. What I do believe is that, in America, we have the freedom to evaluate ourselves, determine our level of capability, and decide from there whether or not we should be owners of firearms. That includes the ability to train our young ones, or the ability to find help from someone who can.
I want to close by saying that any death of any child is tragic, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. This was not meant to be a direct comparison of numbers, but rather a direct comparison on the futility of anything, including laws banning guns or swimming pools or bathtubs or toilets, other than training and education to prevent as many child deaths as possible.
- mobilemarvel
February 9, 2009 10:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thanks for agreeing, then disagreeing
You first agree that it was apples V oranges, but then go on to say "I am simply making the argument that if we decide we need to ban guns, or even restrict their use by people who have small children then we need to ban just about everything we do in life.". You are trying to make an apples V apples argument when you have conceded that it is apples V oranges.
Guns are NOT "just about every thing we do in life", not by a long shot. Calling for restrictions on guns does not equate to a need to call for restrictions on everything. The stats I produced show that incidents of drowning and firearm fatalities vary greatly according to age, clearly differing factors at play. Yet you appear to want to lump them together.
I'm glad your kid has been taught not to touch guns, sadly we've seen incidents where parents haven't been so cautious.
You write that "This was not meant to be a direct comparison of numbers, but rather a direct comparison on the futility of anything, including laws banning guns or swimming pools or bathtubs or toilets, other than training and education to prevent as many child deaths as possible", but you did provide a direct comparison of numbers. Nobody is claiming that bans/restrictions/whatever can totally eliminate fatal incidents but you appear to think that unless such things achieve a complete solution then they are a waste of time. Correct me if I'm wrong.
- Pottering
February 10, 2009 4:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Purpose of My Reply...
Wow! There is so much here to take issue with. Unfortunately I don't write for a living so I don't have countless hours to continue to do research and write on this. I want to address a few things you said specifically and then I have to move on.
I am not, nor was I ever trying to compare specifically, as I said before, the issues of childhood gun deaths and injuries vs. childhood drowning deaths and injuries. I used that specific statistic to make a broader point that applies to all of life for everyone, whether they are a gun owner or not. It is the fact that personally responsibility is the only thing that will prevent tragedies, and even with personal responsibility, tragedies happen... even for non-gun owning families. Life happens, and when we decide as a people to restrict freedom for safety, we have given up the only thing that matters. I could have used the statistics for many other types of childhood injury or death which actually are higher and more closely mirror the age dynamic of firearms deaths for children, but my point was never direct comparison. My point was that no matter what you do... ban guns, swimming pools, anything built higher than 4ft above ground level (as last I checked more children are injured or die in falls than by guns), ban everything you can think of that kills children and children will still die due to tragedy.
Again, I risk sounding callous in writing this, but I believe that personal liberty is more important to our society than any notion of "public safety." For without personal liberty, there is no freedom, and without freedom, who the hell wants to be alive anyway? I would recommend that anyone who is more concerned with preventing the so-called "needless deaths" within the United States pack up their belongings and move to Europe. For instance, in the United Kingdom, they are so concerned with preventing "needless deaths" that they have already outlawed guns, any form of self-defense whatsoever, even if someone is trying to kill you, and they are well on the way to banning knives as well. Don't ruin my country, move to somewhere that they have already given up on their personal freedom for the false pretense of safety.
You stated that I think "unless such things achieve a complete solution then they are a waste of time." While you are partially correct, I do need to correct you on one thing: Any of those kinds of laws are not only a waste of time, but a surrender of liberty for the sake of some people's peace of mind. I am not willing to accept that. Peace of mind will not keep me safe from some piece of crap gangster or junkie who wants to impress his ghetto friends or score another hit of smack from killing me when I won't give him what he wants. In this world, as long as there is evil, I will use the most effective means of keeping that evil from hurting myself or my family. These useless social pariah will never give up the tools that they use to take advantage of good honest people, and therefore I will not give up mine. Not to mention gun bans only make things worse, see: United Kingdom and Australia.
That is really all of the time that I have to address this issue. Maybe this time you can see my actual point instead of fixating on the numbers.
P.S. The numbers do show that gun deaths and injuries of children is at an all time low and is in the BOTTOM 5 things that injure or kill our children.
- mobilemarvel
February 13, 2009 1:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your logic is confused
You say", "I am not, nor was I ever trying to compare specifically, as I said before, the issues of childhood gun deaths and injuries vs. childhood drowning deaths and injuries. I used that specific statistic to make a broader point that applies to all of life for everyone, whether they are a gun owner or not. It is the fact that ", and even with personal responsibility, tragedies happen... even for non-gun owning families.".
You did compare childhood gun deaths and injuries vs. childhood drowning deaths and injuries, that is a fact, so don't try and tell you didn't.
You go on to state, "and even with personal responsibility, tragedies happen". Tell us something we don't know.
With or without personal responsibility tragedies will happen, we all know that. How best to avert tragedies is what we should be investigating. Whether the costs of avoiding tragedies are outweighed by other considerations is a matter for conjecture.
Public safety does not necessarily mean a loss of personal liberty as you infer. Our personal liberties are already infringed in a number of ways.
Self defense is NOT outlawed in the UK as you postulate, that's just hyperbole on your point to try and make a case. Stick to the facts, please.
You go on to make the argument that "Any of those kinds of laws" are a surrender of liberty simply for somebody else's peace of mind. That is breathtakingly arrogant. Believe it not the vast majority of those wanting stricter gun laws want them, not simply for peace of mind, but for actual results, ie Australia's 1996 gun laws instituted to limit the possibility of firearm mass murder and none since.
You sate that "Not to mention gun bans only make things worse, see: United Kingdom and Australia.". Well now I know why you said upfront "I don't have countless hours to continue to do research". I'm from Australia and I challenge you to provide any factual evidence that our gun laws have made things worse. Over to you.
- Pottering
February 14, 2009 9:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Too Easy
First thing I Googled. Take it for what it's worth. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902
Sure, firearm mass murder is down in Australia, but every other form of violent crime is up.
Since our liberties are already infringed, we should put up with MORE infringement?
Yeah the Brits can defend themselves. I think pointed sticks are still legal.
Lastly, you're from Australia. Enjoy your gun free Utopia and quit dinking with my freedom.
-RedFish
- RedFish
February 16, 2009 8:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Shooting you down in flames is what's "too easy"
You reckon every other form of violent crime is up in Australia, but the article you linked MISTAKENLY harps on about Australia's burglary rate. Sadly for you and the article author burglary is NOT classified as a violent crime, never has been. I'll explain it for you. Burglary is entering premises and stealing without coming into contact with another person. If there is contact it becomes robbery and armed robbery if weapons are involved. And guess what? Armed robbery in Australia is down since 1996. As for burglary the Australian Bureau of Statistics says "There was an overall decline in the number of UEWI offences between 1995 and 2006." UEWI is Unlawful Entry With Intent and includes burglary, break and enter, and some stealing.
The article you linked is dated March 2, 2001 and repeats a list of measures for Australia that actually relates to 1997, when the gun buyback was still actually occurring. In other words the data is 12 YEARS OLD and covers a period before the gun buyback could have any chance of real impact. It's includes such gems as "In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent. " PROBLEM is that was an increase in year from 6 gun homicides to 18 and promptly fell back to 6 the following year, and that was 12 years ago!
My advice to you is NOT rely on recycled garbage to make an argument. If you do you'll be exposed as you were here as someone who puts ideology ahead of facts.
- Pottering
February 17, 2009 4:51AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A little more recent, still too easy.
AAP General News (Australia)
08-17-2004
Vic: Victorian crime rate drops but murder, rape rise
By Nick Lenaghan and Karen Hart
MELBOURNE, Aug 17 AAP - Victoria was Australia's safest state despite rising rates of murder and rape, police Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon said today.
The state's overall crime rate for 2003-04 fell 7.3 per cent - the lowest in a decade - while murders went up by nine per cent and rapes by 11 per cent, according to police crime figures released today.
Good overall, unless you were murdered or raped. Think a handgun could of stopped a rape or two? But then you would have counted a woman defending herself with a gun as a homicide. Better off to be raped I guess.
And this in Australia's "safest state."
-RedFish
- RedFish
February 18, 2009 7:01AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.