Well, with this I can't disagree in principal. Everybody has their take on a subject, but that doesn't make them right.
I THOUGHT that if I reposted some statistics here it might serve as a basis for some intelligent discussion, as well as an analysis into some of the finer points of the information (specifically, the claims that firearms presence increase risk of adolescent suicide and the rather disturbing reported tendency of many, if not most, young boys who encounter a firearm by accident, to simply pull the trigger and see what happens).
Removing weaponry to prevent suicide is just treating the symptom.
Obviously, if someone posts something here which contains ANY information NOT deemed to be "100% conservatively kosher" without CLEARLY labelling it, "BARF ALERT - EVERYBODY SLAM THIS ARTICLE", then there are SOME who will be highly offended.
It's just that we've seen the whole "twenty kids per day lose their lives" claim, which seems bad at first, but then you look more closely at the numbers and realize that young-adult street gang activity makes up the brunt of the figure. Then you wonder what these people are tying to push off. They said twenty children a day, not less than one child per day, plus nineteen and three-quarters gang-bangers shooting each other.
It must just take too much effort to actually look at some of the claims made and discuss why they are or are not valid. Oh, and it offends some who desperately fear the masses will be misled into damnation by anything NOT clearly labelled "BARF ALERT."
Well, articles favorable to gun control by custom around here deserve "barf alerts." When in Rome.
Fortunately, there are some here who are willing to actually think about and discuss the issues, and consider whether there be any actual truth in a claim made by anyone labelled "the opposition."
The actual truth is that a firearm is a tool. Nor are firearms the leading cause of death in this country. They are way down at the bottom, next to drowning and falls from height.
My personal feeling has been that truth is arrived at by a careful investigation of claims and counter claims made on each side of an argument, and discovering WHY claims are invalid, thus leading (would you believe it?) to a greater certainty and confidence in one's own position, but, hey, I guess such an approach is out of fashion. Not to mention dangerous, since somebody such as yourself might actually learn something new.
I am in danger of learning something new? What arrogance. How many guns do you own, and what is your experience with weaponry? If you have little, then what business do you have telling me what to do?
The people who push for gun control are invariably people who have no experience with firearms. People who push for design changes in firearm construction know nothing about what the customer wants. People who push for gun control act as if they fear guns, and you fear what you don't understand. So, I think you should learn something new.
Or somebody such as myself, who has already invested many hours into researching the issues and who, yes, knows that certain portions of the article posted are quite invalid but who still has questions about some of the finer points.
Hours of research? Were you in the armed forces? Are you a policeman?
I THOUGHT that some of the infinitely wise people here such as yourself might be able to make a contribution to share a bit of your vast store of wisdom with those in need of it, as well as sources for your conclusions. But I guess I was wrong.
Are you an "independent thinker" or are "infinitely wise?" You are quick on the draw, if you'll excuse the expression.
Removing weaponry to prevent suicide is just treating the symptom.
I'll agree with that, and what's more, it's well said.
It's just that we've seen the whole "twenty kids per day lose their lives" claim (snip)
Yeah, I know. But there are other things in what I posted besides that stat, if that one's even in there.
Well, articles favorable to gun control by custom around here deserve "barf alerts." When in Rome.
Again, IMO a "barf alert" elicits ridicule rather than discussion. Perhaps I *should* have been more clear up front about the specific points I most wanted to discuss, however. However, I was also interested in some more general comment as well, which, happily, a number of people have provided.
BTW, as far as I could tell through my search (and my previous perusal of the bang list), this is the first thread here specifically on KIDS and guns.
The actual truth is that a firearm is a tool. Nor are firearms the leading cause of death in this country. They are way down at the bottom, next to drowning and falls from height.
Thanks for mentioning this, as it sparks my memory that one of the (relatively few) invalid statistical presentations on the PRO-gun I've seen recently had to do with the proportion of drowning deaths and how much more dangerous a swimming pool is to children than a firearm. The point may have been valid, but the scale appeared to be WAY off, since I'm nearly certain they attributed drowning deaths from ALL sources (lakes, rivers, streams, bathtubs, community swimming pools, residential swimming pools, buckets, etc.) to residential swimming pools alone.
I am in danger of learning something new? What arrogance. How many guns do you own, and what is your experience with weaponry? If you have little, then what business do you have telling me what to do?
I didn't tell you what to do, although I did suggest you might learn something new by considering and discussing an issue.
If you disagree with that, then my point is well made.
As for arrogance, well, you started that exchange by making the ludicrous claim that I am "not an independent thinker."
>snip, snip, snip<So, I think you should learn something new.
I'm doing my best on that.
Hours of research? Were you in the armed forces? Are you a policeman?
No and no. Are you? Were you? Even if you are/ were, it doesn't mean you can't learn something new from some genuine, honest research and examination of facts and statistics.
Are you an "independent thinker" or are "infinitely wise?" You are quick on the draw, if you'll excuse the expression.
If I were infinitely wise, I wouldn't put myself in the category of possibly being able to benefit from the wisdom of others around here, would I?
As far as being quick on the draw, maybe, since I tire quickly of people who jump up to accuse me of various things just because I don't quite fit their cookie-cutter mold. And if pushed, I do tend to push back.
Oddly, while in elementary school I was philosophically a genuine pacifist... :-)