Guns and kids

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Bowerbird, Jan 26, 2012.

  1. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Every suicide is preventable. The method is not the issue. It's the motivation that's the problem.
     
  2. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, there are easy methods of reducing deaths - we have a program here called "Do the five"



    Quote:
    1. Fence the pool
    2. Shut the gate
    3. Teach your kids to swim - it's great
    4. Supervise - watch your mate and
    5. Learn how to resuscitate



    yet you blanch at the prospect of doing the same thing with guns....better to lock them up and keep the kids in the dark,eh?
     
  3. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Read my previous post

    2 simple methods

    firstly an indicator to show if the gun is loaded (and THAT is an idea whose time is long overdue

    and secondly child safety locks on the guns themselves - and there has to be a simple way of doing THAT

    But until America, one of the biggest producers of handguns, admits there is a problem with children accidentally being shot then these initiatives will never get off of the ground
     
  4. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    And if it were your child? Your sibling? What if the child were not killed but maimed for life?
     
  5. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What if?

    Come on now. You have to do better then what if you are talking about the restriction of the ownership of private property. If you grant authority to limit freedom on the presumption that it prevents death, you had better come to the table with a very strong argument. What you are talking about pushes us further toward the precipice of a very slippery slope. There has to be a very good reason why it is necessary in order for everyone to agree.

    If the only limiting factor is whether or not death can be prevented then there's a product list that is vast and varied that necessarily must also meet this criteria. How crippled would our society be if nothing we did could involve the risk of death?
     
  6. hiimjered

    hiimjered Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    7,924
    Likes Received:
    143
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    A loaded gun indicator might be useful - as long as it never gave a false negative; however, it might make people complacent. The standard thing that is taught to every gun user is to ALWAYS check to ensure that the gun is cleared every time you pick it up. Even if you see someone clear the weapon, you clear it yourself. This is also one of those things that would be taught in school if such was allowed.

    As for child locks, I don't know of any child locks on any current items that are very effective against children. It would be impressive to come up with something like that for a firearm - especially something that is simple and intuitive enough that an adult wouldn't be distracted when the gun is actually needed. If something were developed, it wouldn't do anything to help the hundreds of millions of guns in private hands already, especially not the ones in the hands of criminals.

    As with anything else, it is easy to get the number of deaths from most causes down to a manageable level, but as that number of deaths approaches zero the cost and effort required to eliminate each death gets higher and higher.

    I find myself going back to the pool example because it is a great comparison. The current methods will reduce deaths. The next step to cut deaths would be mandatory swimming and self-rescue training to young children - which would be a huge taxpayer expense and would only cut a handful of the deaths. To reduce them still further would require some kind of automatic hardshell pool cover that would automatically cover the pool when adults aren't present or similar technology. This would cost billions and would only prevent a few more. Each step toward zero is far more expensive and intrusive than the step before.

    With firearms we've already reached a pretty solid equilibrium point between number of deaths and the cost/intrusion that people are willing to accept.
     
  7. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    But I am not - that is my point. Nearly every single American on this thread has simply assumed so - thereby proving that there is a cultural barrier to discussions surrounding accidental child deaths when it involves firearms

    So where has anyone suggested we do that?
    Actually that is a good point - if guns were a faulty product would you accept this injury rate?
     
  8. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Firearm safety rule 1.
     
  9. Uncle Meat

    Uncle Meat Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,948
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's actually an Australian program:

    http://kidsalive.com.au/

    Back to the topic ...
     
    Bowerbird and (deleted member) like this.
  10. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Again it is a matter of actually getting to the point of discussion in America without the fear mongering relating to removal of weapons. Until THAT happens there is no impetus on the firearm manufacturers themselves to come up with solutions that meet the criteria - and I am sure it can be done. Heck they are going there with user recognition and who knows? Next years models might only be able to be fired if you have an imbedded microchip - that would stop someone using your gun against you or even stealing your gun


    And it is interesting that you mention mandated swimming lessons - we are close to doing that. We have a LOT of free swimming lessons for kids under five (you did not click my link obviously) and nearly every primary school in my state has a swimming pool and the kids are bloody taught to swim first grade

    No wonder we keep beating you at the Olympics :p
     
  11. hiimjered

    hiimjered Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    7,924
    Likes Received:
    143
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, they've been working on the identifying firearm thing for a while now, and it does seem like interesting and useful technology, at least in home defense weapons.

    As for the lessons, just wait, someone will propose making them mandatory, and once they get that and discover that there are still pool deaths, the hardshell cover thing will be next. :)
     
  12. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes you are. You just don't realize it. You outlined criteria and policies you would like to see put in place to help protect children. These criteria and policies are limitations to the ownership of private property.

    If? Do you have evidence that guns are faulty?

    Also, do you realize that manufacturers already equip models with the features you claimed were "long overdue?"
     
  13. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    what if frogs had wings ? then they wouldn't bump their ass when they jumped.

    Living life thinking 'what if' is a (*)(*)(*)(*)=-poor way to live
     
  14. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Gee then I must have used invisible typing

    And this is my point - the discussion is closed as soon as it is opened because of assumptions and you know what they say about people who assume things don't you?
    Then the situation should be "How do we encourage people to buy guns with such restrictions and improve the safety of the children"

    I, other than suggesting modifications to new guns have not talked about any other restrictions

    But Americans cannot seem to get past that to make their own suggestions

    More statistics

    http://www.kidsandguns.org/study/fact_file.asp#deaths
     
  15. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
  16. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Uncle Meat and (deleted member) like this.
  17. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your comments are quite visible. Do you not understand what you are typing?

    Are you not suggesting we "do the five" in regards to gun ownership? You also suggested loaded weapon indicators and child safety mechanisms. These things are things that you suggested. They are things that you typed. These things put limitations on the ownership of firearms.

    You might think they are minor limitations. You might think they are necessary limitations. I'm simply saying your argument has to justify these limitations in some way. I do not think that the simple argument that they prevent death is in itself a valid argument. There are many things we do that carry the risk of death and we find that risk acceptable. There are many things that can do to mitigate the risk of death that we do not do because because it is not equitable for us to do so. We do not set the speed limit to 5 miles an hour as an example. We do not require or even suggest that everyone wear crash helmets while walking on stairs to reduce the very high risk of fall based head trauma. We do not require or suggest that people drink only blended food to mitigate the risk of choking.
     
  18. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think you understood why those comments were made.

    Most firearms owners that I know do not use mechanical safeties. It's not because they do not wish to be safe. It's because they provide a false sense of security. They feel that mechanical safeties and interlocks have the potential to fail, and that those who rely on them are less safe then someone who simply follows correct gun safety.

    You might want to reflect on that comment a moment. You are talking about someone else's culture after all.
     
  19. Uncle Meat

    Uncle Meat Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,948
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This one is a classic:

    "IMO, there are no accidental shootings, just negligent ones. Also the world doesn’t need safer guns. A gun is a device to blow someone’s head off."



    (Fangbeer: could you please include the author's name and link when you do quotes? - it makes things confusing if you don't, thanks).
     
  20. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you wrote it, you'd know I was talking to you. If you didn't write it, I'm not talking to you.
     
  21. Uncle Meat

    Uncle Meat Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,948
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It makes things easier for other people following the thread (if they come in late).

    Could you please do quotes the same way that everyone else does?

    Thanks.
     
  22. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Ah! So it is not the seining of the communication but the receiving that is at fault

    I was talking about swimming! Please read what I write NOT what you think I might write
     
  23. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was under the impression that this was a thread about firearms. Are you saying that your comments about swimming had nothing to do with this thread?

    How odd.
     
  24. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Yes and it is a culture that is intrusive on a lot of the rest of the world - whether we like it or not ergo we have a right of say as well

    Now where is your proof about what "most firearms owners" want or wish? My links earlier showed that up to 80% of Americans were actually concerned about gun safety
     
  25. Uncle Meat

    Uncle Meat Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,948
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Can you please use properly referenced quotes, so that all forum members (including those coming to the thread late) can see exactly what is going on?

    This is a perfectly reasonable request, and I can see no reason why you would refuse.

    Thanks.
     

Share This Page