Firearms overtook auto accidents as the leading cause of death in children

ALL of them.

Now... are you going to answer the question? Or am I just wasting my time every time I open one of your posts? There are many threads with posters willing to discuss the actual TOPIC of the thread. So I don't need to waste my time reading posts on those who just want to derail the threads.

Alternatively, if you want to discuss gun regulation, you can do it in THAT thread.

 

Because they're NOT killing children. They are aborting embryos. Now it's your turn. Answer the question!

 

Each of my posts have answered your question. All of them.

You're attempting to have an effect on a system that produces dead children. Your supposition is that removing guns will have a positive effect on the rate of child death. This logic is unsupported.

The guns are being used in support of a market that kills children. How does removing guns from the system result in fewer dead children? How does this effect the market that kills children? Can you conclusively show that saving the lives of drug traders will produce fewer children killed by the drug trade?

 

Yet another opinion piece spamming the Current Events section.

 

How will restricted access to guns effect the overdose rate in children?

 

I'll answer your stupid question.
[quoteGolum] surely you'll now be calling your congressperson urging them to enact stricter gun legislation, right?[/quote]
No, because any new legislation wouldn't address the problem and only serve to punish law abiding citizens.

I new that you couldn't have an honest conversation about fixing the problem that you have presented, even though it was presented through a lie.
That is why I stated that you are not worth the attempt at a conversation. If anyone's solution is something other than ban all guns, then you dismiss them.
Have a good day.

 

Which is as insane as your question. Because, of course, it's very difficult for a children to die of a gun shot if there is no gun.

I can tell you one thing: making abortion illegal is not going to reduce the number of abortions. In the short run, it will just make them more dangerous. But, in the long run, women adapt, and they are bound to become easier, as I demonstrated in this thread
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ts-the-u-s-that-violates-human-rights.606382/

I said nothing about banning all guns. Different topic, though.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/how-to-ban-guns-without-firing-a-single-shot.600040/

If you want to discuss the issue, do it there. If you're happy hiding behind your made-up arguments (which you ascribe to me), then don't bother.

 

Is this the full analysis of your claim? It completely ignores the rest of the system the child exists within.

How does the removal of the gun affect the other rates of death in children? Are you assuming zero rate of change? Why would you assume that?

What happens to the rate of death in children as a result of domestic violence?
What happens to the rate of death in children as a result of other types of violent crime?
What happens to the rate of death in children as a result of overdose?
What happens to the rate of death in children as a result of poisoning, hanging, falls, & other suicide methods?

Please provide evidence for each of your predictions.

 

Yes!!! And unless you can prove that you can shoot somebody with a firearm if you don't have one, it's as sound as E=MCC.

So your argument now is that removing guns doesn't keep them from dying in car accidents.

You have to READ these arguments to believe that anybody would actually make them.

 

Why does this same argument not apply to restriction of access to guns?

Would you accept the answer: "I can tell you one thing: making guns illegal is not going to reduce the number of gun deaths."

 

You seem to be focused on the prevention of death by gun.

I'm focused on the prevention of death.

Would you be pleased if your policy caused gun deaths to decrease while also increasing the total number of deaths?

 

My question to you is how removing guns effects other causes of death. Perhaps you should take your own advice and read the questions before you respond to them. My question is quite clear.

I didn't even mention car accidents. Not sure where that came from. You realize your graph also includes overdose and conspicuously combines suicide and homicide in gun deaths?

 

I see no difference between your argument regarding the reduction of gun related death and the government's argument regarding the reduction of covid related death.

In order to protect the children from the risk of covid related death the government severely restricted children's access to education and travel. The result was an explosion in the rates of child death as a result of overdose and suicide. The result was a rate of child death that exceeded reasonable predictions of the rate of death in children as a result of covid.

How will this change in gun policy effect the total rate of child death?

 

Because, while you can't shoot somebody via Zoom, a doctor CAN perform an abortion remotely from all the way at the other side of the planet. As the thread I referenced demonstrates.

And it's cheaper, BTW. So even though right now it's free, Dodd might have created a brand new business.

 

Well... good luck with that! That will surely put funeral homes out of business....

 

Are you suggesting that death as a result of an illegal firearm has to be conducted remotely?

How does the doctor get a davinci robot through the tubes?

 

Which is like asking how putting out a fire prevents houses from being destroyed by tornadoes.

It was amazing that you formulated the question in the first place, but not as amazing as it is that you keep asking even AFTER it was explained to you how ridiculous it is.

But since you don't have any more arguments, I would expect you to keep at it. However, you are on your own. I think the comedic fact has run its course.

 

So you would be pleased if the rate of death increased as a result of the policy? Why do you want more children to die?

 

I'm answering your question. Pay attention!

How indeed!
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ts-the-u-s-that-violates-human-rights.606382/

 

It's not like that at all. Those two systems are not interrelated. The means to produce a suicide is related to guns, and other means. The means to produce an overdose are related to guns. The means to prevent violence is also related to guns.

See the difference? There's no connection between a house fire and a tornado. There is a connection between gun violence, overdose, homicide, and suicide.

A more apt analogy would be advocating to ban electric heating to prevent house fires. People would simply switch to other methods of heating that may or may not increase the rate of house fires.

 

Guns don't fit in a Fedex drop box?

 

NPR?

 

Golem, do you have an interest in developing sound policy to protect the lives of children?

If yes, your policy needs to address the motives that put children in danger, not the tools used to affect that motive.

But that's too hard, right?

 

It is because his ideas are childish at best. Even if his idea wasn't simply wishful thinking the real goal of disarming people has nothing whatsoever to do with child/leprechaun/tooth fairy deaths they simply want a monopoly on violence.

It's just their evil side rearing it's obvious head to bite lawful citizens.

 

I don't think it's fair to attribute to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence. I don't believe he wants to produce evil. The problem is the lack of understanding of the system he wants to regulate for the better.

Like many that want to pull at the levers of society, he has no idea what the lever he's pulling is attached to. It's a tunnel vision problem. It's a problem with thinking in general that we all have to deal with. Complex problems must be simplified so that we can think about them. Often we overlook an important complexity when doing so. No one would think no gun = no violence. That's too simple. But it's quite easy to think no gun = less violence. The problem is that making that claim you've assumed a static system of violence. That's not the case. A change in input will produce a change in output. Knowing exactly what aspect of one caused the other is nearly impossible. And so that's why they keep making these decisions, like the covid example I mentioned. It's also why I'm trying to use the overdose example to get him to realize it.

Even if the impossible were to be achieved and we produce a total elimination of guns that would have a some type of output effect on the drug trade. I posit that reduced gun violence in the drug trade would expand access to the drugs that result in child overdose. If drug delivery monopolies can't be enforced with violence, then the only means of competition is reduced price and increased access. Can anyone make a positive claim that child death by overdose would not increase beyond child death by gun use?