this article is 100% false. I have done extensive studies on this subject and found the opposite. For example, California has very strict gun laws and is the most populated state in the US, it has double the child firearm deaths of Florida (the third most populous state) and 50% more then Texas (the 2nd most populous state) even though both of those states have far less strict gun laws. (and Vermont, that has open carry without a permit) has a fraction of the gun deaths of California.
This article is obviously pushing an agenda.
Please state the rates and their sources, including the study time period. Thanks in advance for your cooperation in this matter of public interest and education.
Gun ownership negatives do not outweigh personal rights and responsibility for those who are responsible with them. The amount of deaths are ludicrously low as a percentage of owners, so much so that there is still debate as to the affects, and yet we are tackling that before say solid border control, which has far more affects on sex trafficking, child trafficking, crimes, etc.
Over a third, and as much as half, depending on when and who says, of households have a or multiple guns. On a high year we have 1 million illegal immigrants try to cross, a very high year. Child trafficking was going up the last time CNN reported on it, and by a lot.
408,000 crossings in 2016, and 7,572 trafficking (caught).
That’s a rate of 18.55 per thousand for what I will call the risk factor, and it could be easily double this if trafficking just isn’t being caught as often as it occurs.
In 2013 there were 33,000 deaths from guns, and police are about 8-10% of that depending on the year. Let’s go with 10% By the way I’m trying to do easy math since certain years on either of these scenarios are hard to find.
So, 29,700 of the deaths were gun owners. Let’s be generous and call this 1/3rd of households, and count that as 1/3rd of Americans are open to causing a gun death by ownership or household, which is about 100 million (rounding way down).
100 million people cause 29,700 deaths. That is .297 per thousand for what I will call the risk factor. What you on the left don’t seem to realize with regards to gun deaths is what I will call the “reality” factor. There is no such thing as an acceptable death, but neither are there gun restriction laws which don’t have indirect causes from restricting gun ownership in itself, and neither is there an ability to stop violence in general. In other words “people kill”.
We are talking about just human trafficking and the numbers are this outrageous.
I think we should worry about sorting out our border problems first, and take them a heck of a lot more seriously than we do. This isn’t demonizing those who come here by the way, as many are just victims of the bad ones, it is still the lion share who are just fine people. But if you’re willing to accept a ratio of bad affects like that from just human trafficking as a natural consequence of border crossing, you need to accept the consequences of gun ownership, and at least try to weight that with self defense, etc.
I agree with Polar – David, please provide the link to your “extensive studies” and include the study time period. Thanks in advance for your cooperation in this matter of public interest and education.
I agree with David in calling BS on this article. Studies funded by Bloomberg? Please. Simple observation tells you that their conclusions simply cannot be true. Are you really going to try to tell me that the child death rate by guns in Chicago and Washington, DC are lower than say Texas? Those places have the strictest gun laws in the nation and yet they suffer from the highest shooting death rates in the nation. These liberal “think tanks” can jerry rig a “study” to come to any conclusion they want. And this farce of “universal background checks” is exactly that, a farce. The liberal bias of IJ is showing itself loud and clear.
What are you talking about??? The study was NOT funded by Bloomberg – they simply wrote an article about the study.
Your argument claiming the statistics can’t be trusted simply because of who wrote an article summarizing the results DOES NOT invalidate the study what so ever.
Maybe try reading the study first and THEN post your arguments based on the methodology and/or assumptions that were made? Dismissing the entire study just because Bloomberg wrote an article about it is absurd.
The man is just as entitled to his opinion as you are to yours. He just isn’t acting as entitled as you are.
Besides, where do you get off telling others what they can and can’t do; can and can’t say here ?
I think the ‘study’ was done by one putz while he was sitting on the john at work. That’s what I think. I also think that like many ‘studies’, this one began with the end in mind. And finally, when you announce that your ‘study’ is about children who die by means of firearms, and by your own admission, 2/3rds of your children are age 18 – 21 years of age…..really ? LOL, so much for the ‘study’.
Stating the study was funded by Bloomberg is not an opinion
July 16, 2019 at 8:35 pm
ApPolloar 11 Bear says:
Like or Dislike:
6
7
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 5
Thumb down 2
Stating the study was funded by Bloomberg is not an opinion
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Ahem!
Editor’s Note: Michael Bloomberg, owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News, founded and helps fund Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit that advocates for universal background checks and other gun control measures.
‘…founded and helps fund Everytown for Gun Safety, …’
which doesn’t specifically tie Bloomberg to the quoted study. But, would Bloomberg quote a study that conflicts with this one?
More important; the redux in deaths is 4% for ‘stricter gun law’ states and 35% for states with absolute background checks. THAT is an important distinction which is lost in the discussions here, due to the insignificance of 4% relative to 35%. Almost everyone is OK with strict background checks; i.e. ‘moderate gun control’, while there is a wide diversity of support or opposition to ‘stricter gun control’ (i.e. broadly defined).
July 17, 2019 at 7:52 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
9
4
Did “Everytown for Gun Safety” conduct this study? No. Did Bloomberg provide ANY funding for the company that actually conducted the study? No. Ipso facto, Bloomberg did not fund the study.
July 17, 2019 at 5:34 pm
APOLLOar 11 Bear says:
Like or Dislike:
4
3
Did Bloomberg cite the study… after funding OTHER studies through his firm… that attempts to push an agenda?
Does Bloomberg cite studies that support the opposite agenda?
So, your concern is that the state information is not accurate or that there has been an increase in overall gun-related deaths to our youth. Read the study – start to end.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.
•FUNDING: No external funding.
•POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
•COMPANION PAPER: A companion to this article can be found online at http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2019-1300
As a rate factor per hundred thousand, no, you are not correct.
Adjusting for age it is closer, but CA is still lower. Age adjustment does make some sense, as it could be demographics causing part of the delta.
But, that illustrates a more important point. You can’t take one element and use it to state strict gun laws are good. You also can’t take gun rates without comparing homicide rates in general. We take I think it was 14th for gun violence deaths, far beyond most 3rd world nations falling apart no less, seems bad eh? But we drop to 84th when you move to homicides total.
We do not have comprehensive studies regarding how many children are saved with guns, or are not raped, whether directly or due to deterrence.
Many on the left allow this oversight in comparisons for guns, but would never allow it on the other side.
A good example of this is in the absurd rape statistics in recent day, and this page does a good job of explaining how absurd it is to state Sweden has a rape crises or is a rape country, but the statistics at first glance would certainly suggest it.
I have seen gun control studies making the case in the positive and negative to a correlation of violence with or without gun control.
I will note that this is almost a laughably narrow article on the matter. It would only suffice for a high school level of research required to make a paper about gun violence, possible solutions, and who is harmed over all.
Following up on the above thought process, as well as the topic of this article…
There is an almost 100% consensus agreement that children are deemed to be not responsible as regards use or handling of guns. This points to the key underlying point behind the defense of the Second Amendment; i.e. the risk of harm by guns is due to the mental faculties of the user / holder, and not the gun itself. Therefore, the age of the person should not be the primary determinant of riskiness in use / handling of guns. It is the mental capacity / attitude that should be evaluated and monitored for the sake of granting and sustaining Second Amendment rights.
I think the entire gun debate has been framed by fringe groups on either side. One side says “all guns should be legal” and the other side says “no guns should be legal.” I own a handgun, but I think the obsession with laissez faire gun laws that allow things like silencers, bump stocks etc. is absurd… I went to my first gun show a couple years ago and was appalled at some of the people attending those shows… Don’t get me wrong, there were a lot of decent folks, but there were also A LOT of the “tin foil hat” type folks… I genuinely think an armed populous is a deterrent against despotism, however, we also need common sense gun laws that don’t allow the “tin foil hat” crowd to go out any buy assault rifles… I would encourage all conservative folks that hold an unbridled view of the second amendment to go attend a local gun show and take a look at some of the nut jobs that attend those things…
Nut jobs? Where did you attend medical school for your degree in psychology / psychiatry?
“All conservative folks” who should (must?) go attend … are not alike. Please explain why “all conservatives” must do so, especially after you already told us what happens, and why your judgement on ‘tin foil hat’ status and ‘nut jobs’ status is valid? Why shouldn’t LIBERALS also attend to see how, per your words, some are ‘decent folks’?
Who can we appoint to determine ‘nut jobs’ and ‘tin foil hat’ types when you’re busy?
I couldn’t care less that you doubt what I say. Your interpretation of an average means nothing to me.
Respond to my comment about the judgement of ‘nut jobs’ and ‘tin foil hat wearers’ instead of making personal attacks like the poster I challenged to justify making such crude remarks about conservatives.
There is no interpretation of average, just the real definition. I guess you missed that day in your fake college.
July 16, 2019 at 3:08 pm
Augustine says:
Like or Dislike:
8
0
ApPolloar 11 Bear, I have my right–just like everyone else–to have an opinion about whomever I want. I am not saying that the government should go around classifying people as “nut jobs” but rather I am relaying my purely anecdotal experience at gun shows. Maybe liberals should attend gun shows, I don’t know, nor do I care. I have obviously triggered you, calm down (pun intended).
Your opinion is a judgement of many people based on a biased political perspective. I could easily relay info about gun shows that say there is a wide variety of personalities without stating there are extremists there who we should fear and which justify violating Constitutional rights of EVERYONE.
Wait. What is my biased political perspective? I think you are inferring too much from my comment.
July 16, 2019 at 1:40 pm
Mark Ambrose says:
Like or Dislike:
11
6
Define “assault rifles” please. Also there is no such thing as a silencer, this is a Hollywood made up term that has no place in the real world. Think about it, a gun shot is LOUD, do you really think that decreasing the DB by 30 will make it so that I can shoot someone in the next room and you 5 feet away really can’t hear it? It’s called a suppressor and doesn’t help commit any crime easier, or else criminals would be making them by the buttload.
Mark, you beat me to it. Augustine, just who gets to decide who is a “nut job?” You? No, thanks. The government? You must be joking. Anyone who uses the terms “silencer” and “assault rifles” when referring to what is available to civilian citizens is just plain ignorant. As Mark said, no such thing as a “silencer” and only the military can own/possess assault rifles, with the exception of a Class III license, which is highly regulated and controlled by the BATFE.
Mark, I am sorry, you are right–suppressor. You are assuming a lot in your post. I am fully aware of how loud sound suppressors are. As far as assault rifles, I would consider any civilian variant of the m-16 whether that be the AR-15, AR-10, etc.
although I personally don’t own any firearms or see the need for one, I respect the 2nd amendment. i’ know that suppressors are not actually silent, as the movies would have us believe. My honest question–what is the point of having one? Why would you want or need a suppressor?
A suppressor ? For that occasion when you absolutely, positively must kill every living soul in the house, and don’t want to wake the others up just yet……. ;-)
The use of extremely emotional terms such as ‘nutjob’ by those who oppose guns is disturbing the earnest discussions that should be taking place, to professionally and positively identify the few folks who must not be allowed to own firearms.
I am 100% for proper background checks on gun owners.
July 16, 2019 at 2:14 pm
Jax Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
10
9
I wonder what the ‘tin foil hat’ folks thought about Augustine ? “What is that liberal yuppie doing at a gun show?”
Those people that ‘appalled’ you are called, American Citizens. They would probably be the ones that you would have called ‘Militia’ 200 years ago. Many of them are also what we today would call ‘Veterans’. Means they’ve served their country in the Armed Forces.
Have you considered getting out more often ? Granted, that would mean being exposed to the ‘unwashed’ a lot more.
My apologies, I wasn’t calling you either liberal or a yuppie, I was suggesting that just as you may have misjudged some of the ‘tin foil hat’ folks that they could also have misjudged you.
I have attended a couple of gun shows and I wouldn’t say that I came away appalled (in no small measure due to the fact that I had become vaguely acquainted with some of the folks you mentioned via other chapters in my life) but I suspect I know who you are talking about. I concur that some of the “they’re out to get us” club should probably be scrutinized carefully before being handed a semi-automatic weapon. I also know that most of the anti-gun people have a bad habit of generalizing all gun enthusiasts as “wackos” and such, which is absurd.
Best,
Jax Agent–I think we are on the same page now! Hah! I am definitely talking about the “they’re out to get us” club. Like extremely borderline militant preppers.
July 16, 2019 at 2:06 pm
Jax Agent says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20
2
“Facts are stubborn. Statistics are more pliable.”
This “study” seems to me to be another pathetic example of someone trying to make the parts fit their narrative. And the clincher is that, of the total number of ‘children’ killed by guns during the ‘study’ period, more than 2/3rds were age 18 – 21 years old ! I thought those were young adults ? Why not state that right up front ? How about a study for ‘children’ say 12 years old and younger ?
Oh, oh, call on me, I know the answer ! Because those parts when put together didn’t fit the narrative. That’s why.
This just strengthens the meta-analysis showing it’s more dangerous to live in a household with a firearm done by Anglemyer, which of course everybody here will ignore as they will do with all the studies in it, as well as almost 100% of climate science.
But isn’t that a little bit like saying “People who have encountered firearms are more likely be shot by one (than someone who has never been in close proximity to one).” ?
“People that work in hospitals that treat flu patients are more likely to contract the flu.”
And in many situations they do keep us safe, but too many people own guns today that have not been exposed to them previously. I grew up in a family & community where hunting (and related activities) were simply a part of what we did, even as youngsters, but initially under the close supervision of responsible adults, who had also been brought up with guns. I never knew anyone injured or killed with a gun. I raised 3 girls with guns in the house and never had problem #1.
I only bore you with that anecdote to further my argument that responsible gun ownership and proper firearms safety changes the formula drastically.
As surely as removing 18 – 21 year olds from the number of “children killed” changes the statistics, so too would removing something along the lines of irresponsible/untrained gun owners. Left with actual children (14yrs & younger) killed or wounded in households with responsible/ well trained gun owners and I think you’d find that the entire argument takes another direction.
Perhaps no one should be allowed to purchase a firearm without demonstrating some understanding of careful use ?
I don’t know what the answer is, but I do think that this study, like many others, is , at least as presented, very flawed.
Best – (apologies for being wordy)
this article is 100% false. I have done extensive studies on this subject and found the opposite. For example, California has very strict gun laws and is the most populated state in the US, it has double the child firearm deaths of Florida (the third most populous state) and 50% more then Texas (the 2nd most populous state) even though both of those states have far less strict gun laws. (and Vermont, that has open carry without a permit) has a fraction of the gun deaths of California.
This article is obviously pushing an agenda.
California has a lower firearm death rate than Texas and Florida.
Please state the rates and their sources, including the study time period. Thanks in advance for your cooperation in this matter of public interest and education.
Jams,
Please state your source for your comment.
Pretty irrelevant on the fire arm death rate, and when adjusted as per my other link, they are very close.
This is similar on the rape rate which is why this is hard to make correlative statements linked to causation.
I might add, a surprising statistic, there is a significant positive in Texas in terms of home ownership in favor of Texas:
55.3%
63.3%
So if you’re going to try and knock Texas, you need to knock it off. It’s surprising that there is a lot similar as well.
http s://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/compare/california.texas
Gun ownership negatives do not outweigh personal rights and responsibility for those who are responsible with them. The amount of deaths are ludicrously low as a percentage of owners, so much so that there is still debate as to the affects, and yet we are tackling that before say solid border control, which has far more affects on sex trafficking, child trafficking, crimes, etc.
Over a third, and as much as half, depending on when and who says, of households have a or multiple guns. On a high year we have 1 million illegal immigrants try to cross, a very high year. Child trafficking was going up the last time CNN reported on it, and by a lot.
ht tps://www.cnn.com/2017/07/28/us/migrant-deaths-and-human-trafficking-by-the-numbers/index.html
408,000 crossings in 2016, and 7,572 trafficking (caught).
That’s a rate of 18.55 per thousand for what I will call the risk factor, and it could be easily double this if trafficking just isn’t being caught as often as it occurs.
In 2013 there were 33,000 deaths from guns, and police are about 8-10% of that depending on the year. Let’s go with 10% By the way I’m trying to do easy math since certain years on either of these scenarios are hard to find.
So, 29,700 of the deaths were gun owners. Let’s be generous and call this 1/3rd of households, and count that as 1/3rd of Americans are open to causing a gun death by ownership or household, which is about 100 million (rounding way down).
100 million people cause 29,700 deaths. That is .297 per thousand for what I will call the risk factor. What you on the left don’t seem to realize with regards to gun deaths is what I will call the “reality” factor. There is no such thing as an acceptable death, but neither are there gun restriction laws which don’t have indirect causes from restricting gun ownership in itself, and neither is there an ability to stop violence in general. In other words “people kill”.
We are talking about just human trafficking and the numbers are this outrageous.
I think we should worry about sorting out our border problems first, and take them a heck of a lot more seriously than we do. This isn’t demonizing those who come here by the way, as many are just victims of the bad ones, it is still the lion share who are just fine people. But if you’re willing to accept a ratio of bad affects like that from just human trafficking as a natural consequence of border crossing, you need to accept the consequences of gun ownership, and at least try to weight that with self defense, etc.
I agree with Polar – David, please provide the link to your “extensive studies” and include the study time period. Thanks in advance for your cooperation in this matter of public interest and education.
I agree with both you and Yogi. These personal extensive studies certainly can’t be flawed or biased, can they?
Nor more so that studies funded by ……………. Sadly, it seems that everyone had an agenda.
I agree with David in calling BS on this article. Studies funded by Bloomberg? Please. Simple observation tells you that their conclusions simply cannot be true. Are you really going to try to tell me that the child death rate by guns in Chicago and Washington, DC are lower than say Texas? Those places have the strictest gun laws in the nation and yet they suffer from the highest shooting death rates in the nation. These liberal “think tanks” can jerry rig a “study” to come to any conclusion they want. And this farce of “universal background checks” is exactly that, a farce. The liberal bias of IJ is showing itself loud and clear.
What are you talking about??? The study was NOT funded by Bloomberg – they simply wrote an article about the study.
Your argument claiming the statistics can’t be trusted simply because of who wrote an article summarizing the results DOES NOT invalidate the study what so ever.
Maybe try reading the study first and THEN post your arguments based on the methodology and/or assumptions that were made? Dismissing the entire study just because Bloomberg wrote an article about it is absurd.
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2019/07/11/peds.2018-3283
The man is just as entitled to his opinion as you are to yours. He just isn’t acting as entitled as you are.
Besides, where do you get off telling others what they can and can’t do; can and can’t say here ?
I think the ‘study’ was done by one putz while he was sitting on the john at work. That’s what I think. I also think that like many ‘studies’, this one began with the end in mind. And finally, when you announce that your ‘study’ is about children who die by means of firearms, and by your own admission, 2/3rds of your children are age 18 – 21 years of age…..really ? LOL, so much for the ‘study’.
Stating the study was funded by Bloomberg is not an opinion
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 5
Thumb down 2
Stating the study was funded by Bloomberg is not an opinion
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Ahem!
Editor’s Note: Michael Bloomberg, owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News, founded and helps fund Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit that advocates for universal background checks and other gun control measures.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
excerpt:
‘…founded and helps fund Everytown for Gun Safety, …’
which doesn’t specifically tie Bloomberg to the quoted study. But, would Bloomberg quote a study that conflicts with this one?
More important; the redux in deaths is 4% for ‘stricter gun law’ states and 35% for states with absolute background checks. THAT is an important distinction which is lost in the discussions here, due to the insignificance of 4% relative to 35%. Almost everyone is OK with strict background checks; i.e. ‘moderate gun control’, while there is a wide diversity of support or opposition to ‘stricter gun control’ (i.e. broadly defined).
Did “Everytown for Gun Safety” conduct this study? No. Did Bloomberg provide ANY funding for the company that actually conducted the study? No. Ipso facto, Bloomberg did not fund the study.
Did Bloomberg cite the study… after funding OTHER studies through his firm… that attempts to push an agenda?
Does Bloomberg cite studies that support the opposite agenda?
Not to mention Illinois!!
So, your concern is that the state information is not accurate or that there has been an increase in overall gun-related deaths to our youth. Read the study – start to end.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.
•FUNDING: No external funding.
•POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
•COMPANION PAPER: A companion to this article can be found online at http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2019-1300
There is NO need to point to a ‘conflict of interest’ to invalidate a study by a biased group.
Ok, so here we go, I have to prove you wrong, and liberals will then assuredly use my proving you wrong against me in the future:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state#Age-adjusted_table_and_map
As a rate factor per hundred thousand, no, you are not correct.
Adjusting for age it is closer, but CA is still lower. Age adjustment does make some sense, as it could be demographics causing part of the delta.
But, that illustrates a more important point. You can’t take one element and use it to state strict gun laws are good. You also can’t take gun rates without comparing homicide rates in general. We take I think it was 14th for gun violence deaths, far beyond most 3rd world nations falling apart no less, seems bad eh? But we drop to 84th when you move to homicides total.
http s://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/rankings
We do not have comprehensive studies regarding how many children are saved with guns, or are not raped, whether directly or due to deterrence.
Many on the left allow this oversight in comparisons for guns, but would never allow it on the other side.
A good example of this is in the absurd rape statistics in recent day, and this page does a good job of explaining how absurd it is to state Sweden has a rape crises or is a rape country, but the statistics at first glance would certainly suggest it.
htt ps://www.thelocal.se/20170221/why-sweden-is-not-the-rape-capital-of-the-world
I have seen gun control studies making the case in the positive and negative to a correlation of violence with or without gun control.
I will note that this is almost a laughably narrow article on the matter. It would only suffice for a high school level of research required to make a paper about gun violence, possible solutions, and who is harmed over all.
I agree with stricter gun laws …. as regards how PARENTS and others must secure and store them so children cannot ever access guns.
Other proposed laws are another matter for discussion.
Following up on the above thought process, as well as the topic of this article…
There is an almost 100% consensus agreement that children are deemed to be not responsible as regards use or handling of guns. This points to the key underlying point behind the defense of the Second Amendment; i.e. the risk of harm by guns is due to the mental faculties of the user / holder, and not the gun itself. Therefore, the age of the person should not be the primary determinant of riskiness in use / handling of guns. It is the mental capacity / attitude that should be evaluated and monitored for the sake of granting and sustaining Second Amendment rights.
I think the entire gun debate has been framed by fringe groups on either side. One side says “all guns should be legal” and the other side says “no guns should be legal.” I own a handgun, but I think the obsession with laissez faire gun laws that allow things like silencers, bump stocks etc. is absurd… I went to my first gun show a couple years ago and was appalled at some of the people attending those shows… Don’t get me wrong, there were a lot of decent folks, but there were also A LOT of the “tin foil hat” type folks… I genuinely think an armed populous is a deterrent against despotism, however, we also need common sense gun laws that don’t allow the “tin foil hat” crowd to go out any buy assault rifles… I would encourage all conservative folks that hold an unbridled view of the second amendment to go attend a local gun show and take a look at some of the nut jobs that attend those things…
Nut jobs? Where did you attend medical school for your degree in psychology / psychiatry?
“All conservative folks” who should (must?) go attend … are not alike. Please explain why “all conservatives” must do so, especially after you already told us what happens, and why your judgement on ‘tin foil hat’ status and ‘nut jobs’ status is valid? Why shouldn’t LIBERALS also attend to see how, per your words, some are ‘decent folks’?
Who can we appoint to determine ‘nut jobs’ and ‘tin foil hat’ types when you’re busy?
Lol, the guy who lied about having a statistics degree but didn’t know what an average is is questioning credentials.
This dude lied about having a statistics degree??? BWAHAHAHAHAHA
I couldn’t care less that you doubt what I say. Your interpretation of an average means nothing to me.
Respond to my comment about the judgement of ‘nut jobs’ and ‘tin foil hat wearers’ instead of making personal attacks like the poster I challenged to justify making such crude remarks about conservatives.
There is no interpretation of average, just the real definition. I guess you missed that day in your fake college.
ApPolloar 11 Bear, I have my right–just like everyone else–to have an opinion about whomever I want. I am not saying that the government should go around classifying people as “nut jobs” but rather I am relaying my purely anecdotal experience at gun shows. Maybe liberals should attend gun shows, I don’t know, nor do I care. I have obviously triggered you, calm down (pun intended).
Your opinion is a judgement of many people based on a biased political perspective. I could easily relay info about gun shows that say there is a wide variety of personalities without stating there are extremists there who we should fear and which justify violating Constitutional rights of EVERYONE.
Wait. What is my biased political perspective? I think you are inferring too much from my comment.
Define “assault rifles” please. Also there is no such thing as a silencer, this is a Hollywood made up term that has no place in the real world. Think about it, a gun shot is LOUD, do you really think that decreasing the DB by 30 will make it so that I can shoot someone in the next room and you 5 feet away really can’t hear it? It’s called a suppressor and doesn’t help commit any crime easier, or else criminals would be making them by the buttload.
Mark, you beat me to it. Augustine, just who gets to decide who is a “nut job?” You? No, thanks. The government? You must be joking. Anyone who uses the terms “silencer” and “assault rifles” when referring to what is available to civilian citizens is just plain ignorant. As Mark said, no such thing as a “silencer” and only the military can own/possess assault rifles, with the exception of a Class III license, which is highly regulated and controlled by the BATFE.
Mark, I am sorry, you are right–suppressor. You are assuming a lot in your post. I am fully aware of how loud sound suppressors are. As far as assault rifles, I would consider any civilian variant of the m-16 whether that be the AR-15, AR-10, etc.
although I personally don’t own any firearms or see the need for one, I respect the 2nd amendment. i’ know that suppressors are not actually silent, as the movies would have us believe. My honest question–what is the point of having one? Why would you want or need a suppressor?
A suppressor ? For that occasion when you absolutely, positively must kill every living soul in the house, and don’t want to wake the others up just yet……. ;-)
i’m sure that will get me in trouble…………..
You’re a nutjob! ;)
The use of extremely emotional terms such as ‘nutjob’ by those who oppose guns is disturbing the earnest discussions that should be taking place, to professionally and positively identify the few folks who must not be allowed to own firearms.
I am 100% for proper background checks on gun owners.
I wonder what the ‘tin foil hat’ folks thought about Augustine ? “What is that liberal yuppie doing at a gun show?”
Those people that ‘appalled’ you are called, American Citizens. They would probably be the ones that you would have called ‘Militia’ 200 years ago. Many of them are also what we today would call ‘Veterans’. Means they’ve served their country in the Armed Forces.
Have you considered getting out more often ? Granted, that would mean being exposed to the ‘unwashed’ a lot more.
Liberal yuppie? Hmmm… You obviously don’t read a lot of my posts on these message boards…
My apologies, I wasn’t calling you either liberal or a yuppie, I was suggesting that just as you may have misjudged some of the ‘tin foil hat’ folks that they could also have misjudged you.
I have attended a couple of gun shows and I wouldn’t say that I came away appalled (in no small measure due to the fact that I had become vaguely acquainted with some of the folks you mentioned via other chapters in my life) but I suspect I know who you are talking about. I concur that some of the “they’re out to get us” club should probably be scrutinized carefully before being handed a semi-automatic weapon. I also know that most of the anti-gun people have a bad habit of generalizing all gun enthusiasts as “wackos” and such, which is absurd.
Best,
Jax Agent–I think we are on the same page now! Hah! I am definitely talking about the “they’re out to get us” club. Like extremely borderline militant preppers.
“Facts are stubborn. Statistics are more pliable.”
This “study” seems to me to be another pathetic example of someone trying to make the parts fit their narrative. And the clincher is that, of the total number of ‘children’ killed by guns during the ‘study’ period, more than 2/3rds were age 18 – 21 years old ! I thought those were young adults ? Why not state that right up front ? How about a study for ‘children’ say 12 years old and younger ?
Oh, oh, call on me, I know the answer ! Because those parts when put together didn’t fit the narrative. That’s why.
You mean what you think of the results of the study, because 100%, you didn’t read it.
Read every word of it you dimwit. Are you too slow to read & comprehend the story ? I’d be happy to help you grind your way through it.
This just strengthens the meta-analysis showing it’s more dangerous to live in a household with a firearm done by Anglemyer, which of course everybody here will ignore as they will do with all the studies in it, as well as almost 100% of climate science.
But isn’t that a little bit like saying “People who have encountered firearms are more likely be shot by one (than someone who has never been in close proximity to one).” ?
“People that work in hospitals that treat flu patients are more likely to contract the flu.”
Most conservatives, the gun industry, and people in here are saying it’s not true and guns keep people safe.
And in many situations they do keep us safe, but too many people own guns today that have not been exposed to them previously. I grew up in a family & community where hunting (and related activities) were simply a part of what we did, even as youngsters, but initially under the close supervision of responsible adults, who had also been brought up with guns. I never knew anyone injured or killed with a gun. I raised 3 girls with guns in the house and never had problem #1.
I only bore you with that anecdote to further my argument that responsible gun ownership and proper firearms safety changes the formula drastically.
As surely as removing 18 – 21 year olds from the number of “children killed” changes the statistics, so too would removing something along the lines of irresponsible/untrained gun owners. Left with actual children (14yrs & younger) killed or wounded in households with responsible/ well trained gun owners and I think you’d find that the entire argument takes another direction.
Perhaps no one should be allowed to purchase a firearm without demonstrating some understanding of careful use ?
I don’t know what the answer is, but I do think that this study, like many others, is , at least as presented, very flawed.
Best – (apologies for being wordy)
I wonder what the underwriters in the audience have to say, personally.