A Sane Discussion About Gun Violence

[Jedidiah]

But if you don't secure your swimming pool, and a child drowns, you could be liable. If you don't put smoke detectors/alarms and people die, you could be liable. We CAN (and are) held responsible for negligence - even in our own homes.

Unrelated.

[Jedidiah]

As far as I know - murdering your child is not protected by the privacy clause.

Reading the entire post with the word "unborn" included. And now some evil folks are actually advocating legal post birth abortion.

[Mountain Man]

A knife is not a tool designed to kill - it is merely designed to cut. While it can be used to cut a person as well as a kumquat, that is not what it is designed for. A gun is designed to kill. That is its purpose. A knife can be a weapon if it is used that way. A gun is a weapon. That's the difference, IMO.

Because combat knives don't exist.

[Cow Poke]

A knife is not a tool designed to kill - it is merely designed to cut.

It would be more accurate to say not all knives are designed to kill.

[JonathanL]

if it makes you feel better sooner or later we're gonna have 3d printed designer viruses. IE: an extinction inducing plague generator in the hands of every idiot. Enjoy the inevitable apocalypse as our grandchildren discuss the legality of assault pathogens with 12 or less lethal symptoms from their bunkers.

Seems like I'll have to up my hours on Plague Inc: Evolved

[carpedm9587]

Reading the entire post with the word "unborn" included. And now some evil folks are actually advocating legal post birth abortion.

I missed the "unborn" in the sentence, so thanks for pointing that out. But abortion is not related to our discussion about guns.

[carpedm9587]

Invasion by government into private citizens is what I consider immoral.

If the invasion is unwarranted, I agree it is illegal and unconstitutional. I cannot say I see it as immoral. And the question remains, who such a database be an unwarranted invasion. Since they have data on many of the things related to my life (my car, my passport, my social security number, my property, my marriage, my birth, etc.), it does not seem to me that adding information about what gun I may own is unwarranted, especially when the information can be used to help avert potential tragedy. Indeed, if we CAN do something that is not illegal or unconstitutional, and we do not, isn't THAT the immoral thing?

Because sometimes they slip up and admit it. No I will not go searching for examples, read the news.

Some do.

And how is buying a gun similar to these issues?

In all cases, we're asking, "is a person of that age cognitively ready to handle this responsibility."

And 50 years of looking at the efficiency of the government. Plus my daughter now works for the government and I hear her vent often.

I too have experience with federal, state, and local government. Yes - there is inefficient bureaucracy - as there is in pretty much ANY large organization. There is more in government due to its very nature. But I do not share your sweepingly pessimistic view. I think that may be a major difference between us.

[carpedm9587]

And they are actually reducing these how?

For some reason, I cannot find the list you posted or my response to it. Not sure why. However, from memory - a few examples:

Obesity was climbing at an incredible rate from the 1960s through the 1990s. Then studies showed us some of the potential causes, especially the role sugar plays. Since then, massive awareness campaigns have been launched, doctors have been educated, school lunch programs targeted, and for the past decade the obesity levels have held stable and are even beginning to show signs of dropping.

Cancer (was that on the list?) has been the target of massive studies. Smoking was found to be a major contributor. 50 years ago, 42% of the country smoked. Despite massive effort by the industry to throw smoke (pun intended) in the air, the word got out, advertising was blocked, sales to minors was blocked, campaigns and lawsuits were launched, and smoking in the U.S. has dropped to 17%. Meanwhile, continued studies have pointed to other carcenogenic sources and we keep whittling away at them.

For most of the items on that list (as I remember it), studies and the actions taken as a result have made a difference. Solved the problem? No. But significantly reduced the impact? Yes.

[carpedm9587]

I thought about using the attractive nuisance idea in my post but did not want to get into the radical difference.

I disagree with everything else you responded. And I never leave my house unlocked, ever. My house is locked even when we are home and inside.

What description looks like "due diligence" to you? A previous post or the "locked box inside a locked box inside a locked box.

"Due diligence" (in this case) means someone has made "reasonable effort" to secure unsafe objects/items. Today, given the level of gun violence, I would advocate for "gun locker" as a minimal requirement. A locked house simply is not adequate, for all the reasons I cited, IMO.

[carpedm9587]

Unrelated.

Actually, they all are, Jedidiah. They are all examples of places where, if we do not take reasonable care, we increase the chances of someone being hurt.

[carpedm9587]

Because combat knives don't exist.

Good point. I was thinking in terms of household items. A combat knife, like a gun, should be given special consideration, IMO. A kitchen knife should not.

For example, as a scoutleader, my boys could bring jackknives and kitchen knives on scout trips (once they had passed safety checks), but a knife with a fixed, double blade or a spring-loaded retractable blade, was not permitted.

[Mountain Man]

A combat knife, like a gun, should be given special consideration, IMO. A kitchen knife should not.

Do you have any idea how insane this is? An 8" kitchen knife will kill just as readily as an 8" combat knife, but because one is given the designation "combat knife", you think there's a moral and legal difference? In that case, maybe gun dealers should start designating their guns as "For target practice only!", and then we won't have a problem.

I give you credit for trying to be consistent, but it only serves to expose how ridiculous liberalism really is.

[Sparko]

That they do so "all the time" does not provide us with data about what the impact would be of eliminating guns as an alternative. We simply do not know how many would (successfully) resort to one of these other choices, and how many would simply not try. We are guessing without a well-structured study.

Since the second most popular method of suicide is suffocation/hanging and that is not particularly easy or pleasant, I think it is safe to say that if they don't have a gun they will go to another method. People who want to kill themselves use whatever method is handy once they make the decision. They don't usually plan it out or dwell on it. They just reach a point and do it.

[Sparko]

So Trump seems to be ticking off Republicans and making Democrats happy with his comments on Gun Control.

---
Trump: 'Take the guns first, go through due process second'http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...process-second

[carpedm9587]

Do you have any idea how insane this is? An 8" kitchen knife will kill just as readily as an 8" combat knife, but because one is given the designation "combat knife", you think there's a moral and legal difference? In that case, maybe gun dealers should start designating their guns as "For target practice only!", and then we won't have a problem.

I give you credit for trying to be consistent, but it only serves to expose how ridiculous liberalism really is.

MM - my hope was for a respectful conversation. Can we leave words like "insane" and your mocking emojis off the table, please.