U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-31-2014, 07:17 AM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,545 posts, read 18,438,394 times
Reputation: 3689

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilCookie View Post
Just...how??? Forget the safety settings. HOW, do you take a gun in your purse to Walmart along with a 2 year old, stick him in the shopping cart, and then let him play with the purse that has a gun in it??? How are these people allowed to reproduce?? Honestly, yes it's sad that the woman died, but I would've been a lot sadder if that gun ended up shooting an innocent bystander (or the child or another child!) instead. At least this way no one else suffered due to this woman's lack of brains.
except the future of this 2 year old who has to live with the thought that he shot his mother to death....

i get what you're saying, but the fact is, even the most responsible people on the planet sometimes have a brain fart. which is precisely why the statistics show how often accidents happen with guns vs. how seldom someone uses a gun to defend themselves. it's mind boggling that people continue to carry guns for this purpose. want to hunt, go to the range, etc., go for it. but carrying a loaded weapon around or keeping one nearby in a home is just not a very statistically intelligent decision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-31-2014, 07:19 AM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,545 posts, read 18,438,394 times
Reputation: 3689
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittenSparkles View Post
This mom must have been very distracted if she didn't notice her 2yo digging in her purse, lifting out the gun, handling it, and then pulling the trigger. I don't know much about guns, so maybe from the time he had it in his hands to the time he pulled the trigger was only seconds..... but its still shocking that a 2yo would even be able to figure out how to pull a trigger, much less aim the gun at someone.

This poor kid is too young to even understand that "mommy is dead" - and he killed her!

What a preventable tragedy.
honestly, it could have went off inside the purse and hit her. you're overthinking the sequence of possible events. no "aiming" is required to accidentally hit a person in a store.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2014, 07:21 AM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,545 posts, read 18,438,394 times
Reputation: 3689
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkarch View Post
Please cite the section of the Constitution where gun owners are required to have training or a license. The founding fathers did not require any kind of proficiency with firearms, in fact they specifically said the right will not be infringed. A requirement for a licence or any kind of training would infringe upon those that didn't have a license or training.
in fact, they never said the word firearms either, if you want to be a literalist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2014, 07:23 AM
 
Location: NWA/SWMO
2,946 posts, read 2,823,769 times
Reputation: 2950
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
except the future of this 2 year old who has to live with the thought that he shot his mother to death....

i get what you're saying, but the fact is, even the most responsible people on the planet sometimes have a brain fart. which is precisely why the statistics show how often accidents happen with guns vs. how seldom someone uses a gun to defend themselves. it's mind boggling that people continue to carry guns for this purpose. want to hunt, go to the range, etc., go for it. but carrying a loaded weapon around or keeping one nearby in a home is just not a very statistically intelligent decision.
Actually, the CDC concluded the opposite during a $10M study ordered by Obama:

Quote:
The study, which was farmed out by the CDC to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, also revealed that while there were "about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008," the estimated number of defensive uses of guns ranges "from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."
Quote:
"Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies."



CDC Gun Violence Study Didn't Give Obama White House Outcome It Wanted - Investors.com

Also couple those numbers with the number of unintentional injuries from firearms:

http://www.nssf.org/PDF/research/IIR...istics2013.pdf

It seems pretty clear-cut that firearms are a net positive. Can you support your stance with more than conjecture and opinion?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2014, 07:24 AM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,545 posts, read 18,438,394 times
Reputation: 3689
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWG223 View Post
69colin? Seriously, where did you get that SN?

Anyway, aside...

I don't believe that is the answer.







Firearm sale trends in America:



Conversely, here is how it worked out in England when things went the OTHER way...


Here is how it worked out in Australia:



So, what facts do you have to back your opinion that "guns are the problem in America"? I'm not angry, and noone needs to be, I'm just looking for what you have to support your opinion. Emotions aren't really what matter here---facts do.
the problem with your charts is you're trying to relate the decreases in accidents and deaths to the increase in firearm sales, when in fact, over that period, the # of households that own guns has been declining. people who want guns have been buying MORE guns. that's very different than more people are buying guns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2014, 07:32 AM
 
Location: NWA/SWMO
2,946 posts, read 2,823,769 times
Reputation: 2950
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
the problem with your charts is you're trying to relate the decreases in accidents and deaths to the increase in firearm sales, when in fact, over that period, the # of households that own guns has been declining. people who want guns have been buying MORE guns. that's very different than more people are buying guns.
You're correct in that the number of households which have firearms, however, the drop in unintentional injuries/fatalities is much sharper than is the drop in households no-longer containing firearms, as a percentage.


vs the trend:


Notice how the "spike" around 2002-ish in gun-in-home did not translate to the injuries?


Here is how it worked out in Europe:


The population of Wales was around 2.5 million in 2005, of England, around 60 million.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2014, 07:33 AM
 
Location: In exile
534 posts, read 712,471 times
Reputation: 1384
Default Somewhere Wayne LaPiere is smiling once again

Quote:
Originally Posted by parentologist View Post
Yes...when you realize that more than one gun drooler is armed whilst you shop.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2014, 07:36 AM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,545 posts, read 18,438,394 times
Reputation: 3689
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWG223 View Post
I found what I highlighted in red, and blue, in your post to be quite at odds with each other. Notice you didn't write: "If the gun had not sneaked into her GD purse on its own..."

Plenty of women who would be dead today if they DIDN'T have a firearm with them (not necessarily in their purse, but carried properly). But of course, those don't matter....

Ironically, people like you (anti-gunners) tried to get the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council through the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) to compile a report that proved firearms were "bad". They did their best collecting data...but it proved the opposite.

Here is a link to the most "neutral" source I could find. OF course most mainstream media is liberal (except Fox, and good luck getting a liberal to click a Fox link...), so it was kindof tough to find a news agency that was more neutral. Anyway, I am sure you can Google more on it. Our anti-gun president is responsible for the Executive Order that burned $10M of our tax-payer money to tell us what many of us already know who have been following what happened in the UK after they went all ban-happy.

CDC Study: Use of Firearms For Self-Defense is

I get that people want to be emotional, but lets be factual instead.
The CDC report did not collect data to prove either case. they reviewed studies that have already been done on the matter, and found 4 studies that showed that crime victims who actively used a gun to defend themselves had lower rates of injury than crime victims who did not use guns to defend themselves (Kleck 1988; Kleck and DeLone 1993; Tark and Kleck 2004; and Southwick 2000).

That's not the same as "it proved the opposite" All it did was provide the conclusions of OTHER studies that had been done. the CDC report was widely criticized for being a weak study, since laws expressly prohibit any actual research being done by the government.

Your first few posts were sounding reasonable, but now you're just exposing your bias on this topic. So stop saying "lets be factual" when you're intentionally trying to mislead people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2014, 07:40 AM
 
Location: Coastal New Jersey
56,037 posts, read 54,552,165 times
Reputation: 66388
What kinds of idiots go shopping with guns in their purses?

I'm not for gun control, but I am for stupidity control.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2014, 07:42 AM
 
Location: NWA/SWMO
2,946 posts, read 2,823,769 times
Reputation: 2950
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
The CDC report did not collect data to prove either case. they reviewed studies that have already been done on the matter, and found 4 studies that showed that crime victims who actively used a gun to defend themselves had lower rates of injury than crime victims who did not use guns to defend themselves (Kleck 1988; Kleck and DeLone 1993; Tark and Kleck 2004; and Southwick 2000).

That's not the same as "it proved the opposite" All it did was provide the conclusions of OTHER studies that had been done. the CDC report was widely criticized for being a weak study, since laws expressly prohibit any actual research being done by the government.

Your first few posts were sounding reasonable, but now you're just exposing your bias on this topic. So stop saying "lets be factual" when you're intentionally trying to mislead people.
...and your facts to support your position are...?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top