To which you replied:
I'll agree with that, and what's more, it's well said.
Thank you. In my opinion the issue of gun control is one of treating the symptom, generally speaking. Banning fireams does not remove the impetus for homicide or suicide. It stands to reason if there are no guns that there will be no gun deaths, but does this end homicide or suicide? But really this is just removing a tool people use in the employment of crime. It does nothing to reduce criminal tendancies, or address the root causes of crime or suicides. The reasoning goes with no guns, there will be fewer opportunities to steal and kill. To me, this seems to be relying on the laziness of criminals, figuring that if they do not have firearms that they will give up crime as too inconvenient. If someone is determined to steal or kill, will the not find a way?
Why take all of our firearms away, when the thing to do is to take away the people who would steal and kill. Lock them up, separate them from the rest of us.
I wrote:
It's just that we've seen the whole "twenty kids per day lose their lives" claim (snip)
To which you replied:
Yeah, I know. But there are other things in what I posted besides that stat, if that one's even in there.
Yes, but all of those statements are designed to elicit an emotional response. They are calculated to raise alarm at the thought of happy little children being needlessly slaughtered. It is an example of pursuasive writing, not scientific fact but statistics cited for the specific purpuse to covey a point of view. I am not swayed.
I wrote:
Well, articles favorable to gun control by custom around here deserve "barf alerts." When in Rome.
To which you replied:
Again, IMO a "barf alert" elicits ridicule rather than discussion.
Um yeah. When in Rome. There are people who are willing to talk about gun control, but you must be willing to survive slings and arrows. If I go over to Democratic Underground and start threads that have objectional (to them) topics I am going to get flamed.
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.
Around here, any general call to make law "for the children" is suspect as an appeal to emotion. We are inundated with emotional appeals to make law for the children, ban cigarettes to protect kids, get rid of guns to protect kids, etc. The real world just cannot practically be made safe for children. This is the parent's job, to keep their kids from harm, and not that of the government.
I wrote:
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.
To which you replied:
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.
Sure. There are different kind of fatalities that can occur with firearms. A mehcanical flaw can cause injury, accidental discharge, criminal misuse, etc. The statistic "20 kids per day" was equally overbroad, especially in the inclusion of criminal-gang aged adults in the figure seriously slews the figure to make it look far more dramatic that it would be otherwise.
Taken in relation to other accidental causes of death, firearm relate accidents aren't any more or less common. The majority of deaths due to firearms are due to criminal activity, which we've both agreed aren't caused by the guns themselves. If the ultimate goal is to save lives, it is logical to spend limited resources on those things that cause the most fatalities. Reduction of 1% fatalities from accidental discharges of firearms will save a handfull of lives per year, whereas reducing automobile fatalities by %1 will save orders of magniture more.
That's why we scoff at these statistics. They are calculated to bring an emotional response about guns, making them seem more dangerous than they really are. A firearm is a tool, it has no will or life of its own. A person must wield it. The most firearm related fatalities involve criminal acts, so it stands to reason to restrict the criminals themselves, not to curtail gun ownership by otherwise law abiding people.
I wrote:
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?
To which you replied:
I didn't tell you what to do, although I did suggest you might learn something new by considering and discussing an issue.
To the contrary. The whole business of gun control revolves around making new laws that affect me directly. Discussing is all well and good, but let's be honest as to what the ultimate goal. You are arguing for change. It's your responsibility to prove a change is needed, while all I have to do is defend the status quo.
You wrote:
As for arrogance, well, you started that exchange by making the ludicrous claim that I am "not an independent thinker."
Nope, sorry. I was responding to your flame in message number 41, which which you wrote:
...and who shows ANY evidence whatsoever of being an independent thinker rather than just a "YEAH, BABY, ME TOO!" dittohead who just automatically SECONDS every single damn thing that is said in this forum.
That is the comment to which I was alluding.
I asked:
Hours of research? Were you in the armed forces? Are you a policeman?
To which you replied:
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.
You talking to a Marine Corps veteran. And if you have little experience with firearms, pretty much you are arguing from authority. I don't suggest that I am an authoritative expert on weaponry and the law, but I have been around firearms my entire life. I've hunted since I was young, and I still own a number of rifles, pistols, and shotguns. I shoot regularly. Are you personally acquainted with the people responsible for these figures? Were you involved in the research? The actual research, not a few hours of library reading. What you call research is just becoming familiar with the reading material. Obviously, this material agrees with your own personal bias, and so you present it as fact. But do you know it is fact? Would you bet your professional reputation on it? Your life?
What this position ultimately suggests is that I am a dangerous criminal. That my guns are a present danger to the community. You personally may not share the opinion, but many on your side would demand I relinquish my weapons, or go to prison. I am no criminal, I don't even have any outstanding parking tickets.
In conclusion, please do not argue from authority. The authority you cite may not be considered credible in all circles.
1) You seem to either misunderstand or assume my position on the issue of gun control. Whatever the case, you are falsely stating my own personal position. You do this several times:
* let's be honest as to what the ultimate goal. You are arguing for change.
* Obviously, this material agrees with your own personal bias, and so you present it as fact.
* What this position ultimately suggests is that I am a dangerous criminal. That my guns are a present danger to the community. You personally may not share the opinion, but many on your side would demand I relinquish my weapons, or go to prison.
Nowhere in this thread, as far as I'm aware, have I "argued for change". Discussion and fact-finding is NOT arguing for change. Nor have I personally taken the position of the author of the articles referenced.
I suspect that I'm about to argue for change, though not of the kind you quite obviously expect. There is a very good likelihood that I'm going to get involved in arguing and agitating for the passage of a concealed-carry law in the state in which I reside.
If you had read some of my posts in this thread which are not addressed directly to you, perhaps you would have better understood my position.
I was responding to your flame in message number 41, which which you wrote:
...and who shows ANY evidence whatsoever of being an independent thinker rather than just a "YEAH, BABY, ME TOO!" dittohead who just automatically SECONDS every single damn thing that is said in this forum.
That "flame" was not directed to you, but to a moron who had first flamed me by glibly labelling me a troll - apparently without bothering to read any of my numerous previous posts in this forum. I did not flame you in any way, since I was defending myself from attack, and was not even speaking to you. You responded, in effect, by jumping into the conversation and flaming me. Therefore my position that "you started it" stands.
You talking to a Marine Corps veteran. And if you have little experience with firearms, pretty much you are arguing from authority.
As you yourself have noted, hands-on experience with firearms does not
suggest that I am an authoritative expert on weaponry and the law.
You ask:
Are you personally acquainted with the people responsible for these figures? Were you involved in the research? The actual research, not a few hours of library reading.
No, I'm not, which is why I'm reading the research which addresses both sides of an issue and trying to discover the nuances of what is correct and incorrect.
What you call research is just becoming familiar with the reading material.
It would appear that you are not very familiar with methods of research. Reading what has previously been published is known as "secondary research," and it is an integral part of gaining understanding of an issue.
Since others have done research and published the results, reviewing the range of their research and determining what of it is valid is one of the most efficient (and accepted) means of learning something about the subject.
In conclusion, please do not argue from authority. The authority you cite may not be considered credible in all circles.
Again, you mistake my interest in discussion and fact-finding for an "argument against your personal position."
Arguing from authority is making an argument based on the fact that Person A has credibility because he is a such-and-such, and Person A says thus-and-so, therefore thus-and-so must be true. A perfect example is, "I am an ex-Marine. Therefore what I say about firearms policy and adolescent firearms suicide and so on must be true, because I've handled guns, and I've served my country as well."
I in no way disparage or dishonor your service of our country - on the contrary, I respect, admire and appreciate it, and hold you in high esteem as I do any member or former member of our armed forces - but that alone doesn't qualify you to understand the dynamics of societal behavior in the way that civilians (including adolescents) handle firearms.
Not only have I NOT argued in this thread for a specific position, my focus has been exclusively on the facts (and on whether or not such-and-such facts are true) - not the supposed "authorities" behind them. Your assessment, therefore, that I was "arguing from authority" is doubly incorrect.
I hate to leave it at that, because there is so much in your post I agree with. Suffice it to say, if you reread your post and note the substantial amount of stuff I haven't challenged, well, we agree on those things.