~*Official Thread of America's Return to Thoughts & Prayers Normalcy*~

[skillzdadirecta]

14 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

“Lets wait until children are 18 to explain safe sex practices. They will never encounter a situation where they needs such information if we just tell them not to do it.”

 

 

Only in America does comparing something everyone does, like sex, to guns make sense. No problem here at all. And we're giving the birds and the bess talk to six year olds now? Damn times have changed.

[skillzdadirecta]

Anyway, it looks like the CDC may finally start doing some actual studies on gun violence in this country.\

 

After 25 Years In The Dark, The CDC Wants To Study The True Toll Of Guns In America

WWW.NPR.ORG

---

We don't know the full impact of nonfatal firearms-related injuries. Unreliable data and political pressure have obscured the picture for researchers, the media and the public. That may soon change.

 

Quote

We know from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data that just over 100 people, on average, are killed by firearms in the U.S. every day. That includes crimes, suicides, gun accidents and shootings involving law enforcement.

 

But how often is someone injured by a firearm in America? Why, how and what kinds of weapons are used? What are the underlying causes? What's the relationship between shooter and victim? What evidence-based, scalable programs work best to help prevent criminal shootings, accidents and suicides? On these and other questions, people in public health, criminal justice, policing and academia admit they lack full and adequate answers.

 

They're partly in the dark because for more than two decades, the gun lobby and Republican allies in Congress effectively blocked federal funding for firearms research, arguing that such study would undermine the constitutional rights of lawful gun owners.

As a result of that and other factors, experts say, in-depth gun-data collection and sharing in the U.S. is a tangled mess that undermines objective research on programs and policies intended to prevent firearm injury, suicide and criminal violence.

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Only in America does comparing something everyone does, like sex, to guns make sense. No problem here at all. And we're giving the birds and the bess talk to six year olds now? Damn times have changed.

Oh, it is absolutely an indictment of American gun culture. I wish it weren’t the case. 

 

And yes, my kids all got talks about body functions starting at around 4 and updates about every other year since. Sexual abuse of children is a massive issue, and a major way predators work on children is by making them believe the inappropriate touching or actions are fine and normal. Best way to prevent that is by age appropriate education on body function.

[Brick]

I'm all for teaching kids about gun safety, but like skillz said, it should basically be drilling it into their heads never to touch one if they see one, and to tell an adult about it; I do not think it is necessary for kids to be handling and shooting them. Even if I were to concede a bit and say teenagers are OK, young kids really don't need to be shooting it up. I see no point in it, and as I said the tragedy of an accident happening is so much greater if a child is involved, no matter how rare of an occurrence it is. 

[GeneticBlueprint]

I definitely think we should teach 6 year olds about gun safety just like we teach 6 year olds about car safety. Like, we teach kids to wear seatbelts and we put them in cars but we don't let the drive them. As they get older maybe they can "drive" while sitting in a parent's lap in an empty parking lot. And then start fully driving the vehicle while supervised as they get into their mid teens and graduate into fully driving on their own. Some states even have restrictions on that. In Washington for example, even though you have your driver's license and you can drive on your own you can't drive with anybody else who is not a parent until you've had your license for 6 months.

[skillzdadirecta]

26 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

I definitely think we should teach 6 year olds about gun safety just like we teach 6 year olds about car safety. Like, we teach kids to wear seatbelts and we put them in cars but we don't let the drive them. As they get older maybe they can "drive" while sitting in a parent's lap in an empty parking lot. And then start fully driving the vehicle while supervised as they get into their mid teens and graduate into fully driving on their own. Some states even have restrictions on that. In Washington for example, even though you have your driver's license and you can drive on your own you can't drive with anybody else who is not a parent until you've had your license for 6 months.

That's the point I was trying to make. we teach kids car safety by making sure they put on seatbelts and understand what cars are for. We don't put them in the fucking driver's seat or pop the hood and show them how the engine works expecting that to make them safe. That's fucking ridiculous.

[GeneticBlueprint]

5 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

That's the point I was trying to make. we teach kids car safety by making sure they put on seatbelts and understand what cars are for. We don't put them in the fucking driver's seat or pop the hood and show them how the engine works expecting that to make them safe. That's fucking ridiculous.

 

Yup yup. 100% agree with you.

[marioandsonic]

2 hours ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

I definitely think we should teach 6 year olds about gun safety just like we teach 6 year olds about car safety. Like, we teach kids to wear seatbelts and we put them in cars but we don't let the drive them. As they get older maybe they can "drive" while sitting in a parent's lap in an empty parking lot. And then start fully driving the vehicle while supervised as they get into their mid teens and graduate into fully driving on their own. Some states even have restrictions on that. In Washington for example, even though you have your driver's license and you can drive on your own you can't drive with anybody else who is not a parent until you've had your license for 6 months.

 

 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

It’s not even workable, what’s being suggested. Highways are public places and laws can be enforced. How’re you gonna enforce what you’re suggesting? And again, hunting rifles aren’t really the problem here. I’m not seeing the evidence suggesting we need to ban anyone under 18 from hunting. 
 

And I’m still stuck on how we’re supposed to make hunting a job industry where guns can only be accessed on site, lol. 
 

Anyway, keep on. I’ve made my views on guns clear many times over the years. Nothing is gonna change. 

[CitizenVectron]

21 hours ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I was shooting a .22 magnum with my dad at age 6.

 

And our parents ate peas from lead-lined cans, but we've decided that some things should be left in the past.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

5 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

And our parents ate peas from lead-lined cans, but we've decided that some things should be left in the past.

I mean, I’ve yet to see an argument over why it’s so horrific. 

[CitizenVectron]

24 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I mean, I’ve yet to see an argument over why it’s so horrific. 

 

How many kids die from guns each year? That's the issue. I don't care about the ones who use them well and don't get hurt -- we know that not everyone does, and the only way to solve that is to remove guns from all people.

 

I know that's not a possible solution since the US is a failed culture/state, but it's the truth.

 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Just now, CitizenVectron said:

 

How many kids die from guns each year? That's the issue. I don't care about the ones who use them well and don't get hurt -- we know that not everyone does, and the only way to solve that is to remove guns from all people.

 

I know that's not a possible solution since the US is a failed culture/state, but it's the truth.

 

And again, I ask, how are you going to enforce it? I never said it was a good idea to give kids unfettered access to guns. Just that teaching kids to hunt and understanding how to safely handle firearms isn’t the problem here. Guns aren’t going away, so it’s smart that you teach them proper safety and respect. 

[Anathema-]

"I'm for regulations, but not any of those," is an unworkable position. Some would say by design. Maybe we shouldn't let the people who think lead is tasty have much say over whether it's banned or not. 

[CitizenVectron]

16 hours ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

And again, I ask, how are you going to enforce it? I never said it was a good idea to give kids unfettered access to guns. Just that teaching kids to hunt and understanding how to safely handle firearms isn’t the problem here. Guns aren’t going away, so it’s smart that you teach them proper safety and respect. 

 

Well if someone has kids then the biggest thing they can do is to remove guns from their home. Then they can teach their kids the safest thing (after that) to do with guns is not to touch them at all, and that anything a gun points at can be killed by accident.

 

No guns at home >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guns at home+safety lessons

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Well if someone has kids then the biggest thing they can do is to remove guns from their home. Then they can teach their kids the safest thing (after that) to do with guns is not to touch them at all, and that anything a gun points at can be killed by accident.

 

No guns at home >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guns at home+safety lessons

What is the nominal risk of each?

[CitizenVectron]

Just now, sblfilms said:

What is the nominal risk of each?

 

What do you mean?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

What do you mean?

What is the nominal risk of gun injury if you have no guns in the home vs. the nominal risk of guns in the home plus training?

[CitizenVectron]

3 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

What is the nominal risk of gun injury if you have no guns in the home vs. guns in the home plus training?

 

Well in terms of gun violence in the home using guns that are in the home, I imagine it's an infinite difference in risk. Also, I should add that if you live in a place where guns are common (like the US) then even if you don't have guns in the home you should still teach your kids gun safety. So really the metric is:

 

no guns in home+safety lesson >>>>>>>>>>guns in home+safety lesson

[Guest]

1 minute ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Well in terms of gun violence in the home using guns that are in the home, I imagine it's an infinite difference in risk. Also, I should add that if you live in a place where guns are common (like the US) then even if you don't have guns in the home you should still teach your kids gun safety. So really the metric is:

 

no guns in home+safety lesson >>>>>>>>>>guns in home+safety lesson

You can just admit you actually have no idea what the risk levels are  

[Keyser_Soze]

On 12/6/2021 at 9:18 AM, GeneticBlueprint said:

I definitely think we should teach 6 year olds about gun safety just like we teach 6 year olds about car safety. Like, we teach kids to wear seatbelts and we put them in cars but we don't let the drive them. As they get older maybe they can "drive" while sitting in a parent's lap in an empty parking lot. And then start fully driving the vehicle while supervised as they get into their mid teens and graduate into fully driving on their own. Some states even have restrictions on that. In Washington for example, even though you have your driver's license and you can drive on your own you can't drive with anybody else who is not a parent until you've had your license for 6 months.

 

The lesson here among normal people is: If you see a gun don't touch it, don't point it at anyone, call an adult.

Now you want us teaching all 6 year olds how to use a gun, we're just making killing machines. Good times.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

the individual risk of gun ownership is low, like getting a covid infection as a younger person you stand a decent chance of surviving even if unvaccinated or like with driving, but on a societal level the number of guns in homes making having one a very serious driver of household violence just like the number of cars on the road (and VMT) makes deaths by a vehicle one of the leading ways to die for younger people at a societal level

[CitizenVectron]

14 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

You can just admit you actually have no idea what the risk levels are  

 

Assuming equally-educated children in both cases, the risk of gun violence in a room with no guns is infinitely lower than the risk of gun violence in a room with any amount of guns. Not hard to figure.

 

Obviously guns can be brought in from outside (which is why children should be taught basic gun safety if they live in a place where guns are common), but that has no bearing on the risk of gun violence in homes that have guns vs homes that don't. It's well-documented that having a gun in a home increases the chance of a person dying of gun violence.

[GeneticBlueprint]

9 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

The lesson here among normal people is: If you see a gun don't touch it, don't point it at anyone, call an adult.

Now you want us teaching all 6 year olds how to use a gun, we're just making killing machines. Good times.

 

I don't know how you got that from what I said.

[Keyser_Soze]

19 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

 

I don't know how you got that from what I said.

Because the whole conversation stemmed from Cnut learning how to wield a gun at age six. If gun safety in your case is learning how to use a gun at a young age, like prepping a child knowledge for using a car (Which is actually a normal skill) then that is how I got that from what you said.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Assuming equally-educated children in both cases, the risk of gun violence in a room with no guns is infinitely lower than the risk of gun violence in a room with any amount of guns. Not hard to figure.

I am not asking about relative risk. I specifically asked about the nominal risk, or maybe better understood as actual risk. 
 

Relative risk is just a statistical manipulation tactic to obfuscate the actual risk of an event occurring!

 

 

22 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

the individual risk of gun ownership is low, like getting a covid infection as a younger person you stand a decent chance of surviving even if unvaccinated or like with driving, but on a societal level the number of guns in homes making having one a very serious driver of household violence just like the number of cars on the road (and VMT) makes deaths by a vehicle one of the leading ways to die for younger people at a societal level

 

See above. Who gives a hoot about relative risk! If something is very unlikely, twice as likely as that is still very unlikely  

[GeneticBlueprint]

3 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Because the whole conversation stemmed from Cnut learning how to wield a gun at age six. If gun safety in your case is learning how to use a gun at a young age, like prepping a child knowledge for using a car (Which is actually a normal skill) then that is how I got that from what you said.

 

That is not gun safety in my case. 

 

Wear seatbelts, don't even touch the car keys = don't touch a gun, tell an adult if you see a gun

 

Actually driving the car with different degrees of supervision based on age and experience = Actually operating the firearm with different degrees of supervision based on age and experience.

[Kal-El814]

6 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Who gives a hoot about relative risk! If something is very unlikely, twice as likely as that is still very unlikely  

 

A home invasion where a firearm is going to be mitigating factor in safety / survival is also unlikely and there are ways to secure a home without a firearm. Even if the relative risk is low, why incur it?

[Ghost_MH]

33 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

You can just admit you actually have no idea what the risk levels are  

 

In all fairness, those numbers don't really exist since it's a topic half the people in this country have fought against looking into. The closest we can get are studies comparing gun ownership rates to gun homicide rates.

 

Firearm Ownership and Domestic Versus Nondomestic Homicide in the U.S. - ScienceDirect

WWW.SCIENCEDIRECT.COM

---

Gun ownership is associated with firearm mortality, although this association differs across victim–offender relationships. This study examines the re…

 

Looks like for every 10% increase in the gun ownership rate, there's a 13% increase in homicide rates for household members, but only a 2% increase in homicide rates for non-household members. This means that the large increase in gun deaths seen when you compare, say, Massachusetts with it's very low gun ownership rates versus Texas with his higher rates, can be attributed to members of households that own guns.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Kal-El814 said:

 

A home invasion where a firearm is going to be mitigating factor in safety / survival is also unlikely and there are ways to secure a home without a firearm. Even if the relative risk is low, why incur it?

I agree, people are bad at risk assessment. I’m for ending private gun ownership because there is close to zero utility and despite the nominal risk of gun homicide being low, especially if you are not involved in gangs or in a DV situation, because the severity and finality of gun violence is such that the near complete lack of utility makes those death unforgivable.

 

At least cars have notable utility to go along with the crash deaths.

[Ghost_MH]

3 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I agree, people are bad at risk assessment. I’m for ending private gun ownership because there is close to zero utility and despite the nominal risk of gun homicide being low, especially if you are not involved in gangs or in a DV situation, because the severity and finality of gun violence is such that the near complete lack of utility makes those death unforgivable.

 

At least cars have notable utility to go along with the crash deaths.

 

I'm not even convinced you have to go that far. If every state adopted the gun laws from here in Massachusetts, not only would this country be safer, but Mexico would also become a safer country. It's hilariously insane to me that the same politicians that cry about dangerous cartels in Mexico are the same politicians whose lax gun control is arming those same cartels.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

I'm not even convinced you have to go that far. If every state adopted the gun laws from here in Massachusetts, not only would this country be safer, but Mexico would also become a safer country. It's hilariously insane to me that the same politicians that cry about dangerous cartels in Mexico are the same politicians whose lax gun control is arming those same cartels.

If we had Massachusetts levels of all firearm deaths, that’s still 12,000 dead Americans annually from gun violence. For something with nearly zero utility!

[Ghost_MH]

23 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

If we had Massachusetts levels of all firearm deaths, that’s still 12,000 dead Americans annually from gun violence. For something with nearly zero utility!

 

You aren't wrong, but we're likely still many decades away from repealing the second amendment. Still, it would likely be less than the current rate if everyone adopted Massachusetts-style gun laws. The reason for that is the fact that the vast majority of guns found in Massachusetts come from out of state. Everything north of Massachusetts is basically wilderness, so guns migrate down during the winter.

 

Of course, that only helps with the 2% I mentioned earlier. The 13% increase is still household gun deaths and those include suicide. Most gun deaths in Massachusetts are from suicide.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

I guess it’s a miracle my brother and I didn’t die or kill anyone with a hunting rifle as kids. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

At least cars have notable utility to go along with the crash deaths.

(because we have decided this as a political choice it was not predetermined or ordained to be so)