Jump to content

House Votes To Overturn Obama Rule Restricting Gun Sales To The Severely Mentally Ill

Politics   (4,324 Views 72 Comments)
6 Followers; 98,782 Visitors; 15,691 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.
advertisement

You are reading page 6 of House Votes To Overturn Obama Rule Restricting Gun Sales To The Severely Mentally Ill. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

It's neither fair or accurate to frame it as an either/or question. Its not as if there was some proposed law that, if passed would eliminate accidental firearms related deaths of children.

If there was, then your question would be simple to answer. But that simply does not exist. None of the proposed laws I have seen would do that.

This is a good argument.

It isn't entirely honest, in my opinion, given that we don't really study gun violence as the public health issue that it represents. When the gun lobby can prevent the CDC

from studying the issue so that an informed conversation is obstructed, it is difficult to even generate meaningful legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a good argument.

It isn't entirely honest, in my opinion, given that we don't really study gun violence as the public health issue that it represents. When the gun lobby can prevent the CDC

from studying the issue so that an informed conversation is obstructed, it is difficult to even generate meaningful legislation.

Well it's ONLY the CDC who has been prevented from studying gun violence. There nothing stopping, say the governments of Switzerland or Israel (countries where guns in the home is very common) from studying the issue. The same is true for various state level agencies. It does seem fishy I admit, but that isn't MY fault. I'm not an NRA member and vote pretty liberal. I do get the reluctance to allow the CDC and other government agencies to study gun violence given the long history of anti firearms bias.

Virtually every thing I hear said about firearms by state and national level politicians, and the media, are blatant lies and/or half truths. If you are interested I could point some out for you. It's hard to trust in that environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well it's ONLY the CDC who has been prevented from studying gun violence. There nothing stopping, say the governments of Switzerland or Israel (countries where guns in the home is very common) from studying the issue. The same is true for various state level agencies. It does seem fishy I admit, but that isn't MY fault. I'm not an NRA member and vote pretty liberal. I do get the reluctance to allow the CDC and other government agencies to study gun violence given the long history of anti firearms bias.

Virtually every thing I hear said about firearms by state and national level politicians, and the media, are blatant lies and/or half truths. If you are interested I could point some out for you. It's hard to trust in that environment.

let's compare misinformation

you can point out how the government has lied to us so that fewer people would have guns and we were safer and I will point out how the government lied to us so that we would drink alcohol rather than smoke cannabis and be safer

I didn't say anything was your fault.

The larger point is that we have industries who enjoy so much purchased favor among the legislative branch of our elite that the American people are denied truth so that profit streams can be maintained if not deepened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
let's compare misinformation

you can point out how the government has lied to us so that fewer people would have guns and we were safer

Can you ask this another way? I'm not at all sure what you are asking me for with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have to agree that we haven't necessarily exhausted every reasonable option for how to reduce the unnecessary dangers of guns. Only about half the states have laws that impose punishments for failing to secure guns from children. Securing guns properly, which I consider to be a basic responsibility of guns ownership, has been shown to reduce gun accidents among children and to reduce gun theft which then reduces the flow of guns into the black market. These sorts of measures don't restrict legal ownership or use of guns, but have a clear benefit, which generally helps protect gun freedoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you ask this another way? I'm not at all sure what you are asking me for with this.

It was tongue in cheek because whining about not trusting the government is a sad and tired excuse for doing exactly nothing to even attempt to address our health crisis related to gun injuries and deaths in this country.

Edited by toomuchbaloney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
advertisement
I would have to agree that we haven't necessarily exhausted every reasonable option for how to reduce the unnecessary dangers of guns. Only about half the states have laws that impose punishments for failing to secure guns from children. Securing guns properly, which I consider to be a basic responsibility of guns ownership, has been shown to reduce gun accidents among children and to reduce gun theft which then reduces the flow of guns into the black market. These sorts of measures don't restrict legal ownership or use of guns, but have a clear benefit, which generally helps protect gun freedoms.

So why reinvent the wheel?

So, America, this is how other countries do gun control | US news | The Guardian

Take what's applicable. Why the low numbers? No manufacturers with lobbyists influencing the lawmakers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the question is still what would you consider an acceptable number of children to be killed each year in accidental shootings?

Elkpark- If you will go back a page you will see I did answer your question and apologized for how I phrased my post.

I'm not quite sure why you would choose to interpret my original post the way you did- but as it is difficult to ascertain tone, inflection, etc from reading text, people tend to misinterpret quite a bit.

I think there are too many accidental gun deaths period. Not just children, teenagers & adults too. And although I own many guns & enjoy shooting them, I think the gun laws are too lax. I think many people who own guns don't handle them properly or teach their children proper handling- hence all the accidental gun deaths.

But as long as powerful & wealthy lobbyists are allowed to line politicians pockets, we will not get any common sense gun legislation. That goes for other industries as well, not just guns.

I'm still trying to think of a way I could've worded my previous post so that the sentence flow/structure was appropriate but didn't send the message that it's ok for a few kids to be killed off every year. Maybe I'll do better next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would have to agree that we haven't necessarily exhausted every reasonable option for how to reduce the unnecessary dangers of guns. Only about half the states have laws that impose punishments for failing to secure guns from children. Securing guns properly, which I consider to be a basic responsibility of guns ownership, has been shown to reduce gun accidents among children and to reduce gun theft which then reduces the flow of guns into the black market. These sorts of measures don't restrict legal ownership or use of guns, but have a clear benefit, which generally helps protect gun freedoms.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was tongue in cheek because whining about not trusting the government is a sad and tired excuse for doing exactly nothing to even attempt to address our health crisis related to gun injuries and deaths in this country.

"Whining"

Really? OK then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So why reinvent the wheel?

So, America, this is how other countries do gun control | US news | The Guardian

Take what's applicable. Why the low numbers? No manufacturers with lobbyists influencing the lawmakers.

I'll tell you why the numbers are lower. The UK, Japan, Germany, and Australia (the countries used for comparison in the article) are highly secular socities, unlike the USA. America is among the most devoutly religious first world nations.

It's obvious when one looks at the world today, that more religion = more violence. America has been at war for most of its history, and is currently in two shooting wars.

In the world today there are 10 conflicts that kill >1000 people/year. Every one of them is in a highly devout country. That is not to say that these are religious wars. For example the Mexican government's war aginst drug cartels is one of these conflicts that kills >1000/people a year. That is certainly not a religious war, but like every other conflict in the world, is being fought by and among a devoutly religious society.

As we learned in Oklahoma City in 1995, Americans will continue to slaughter each other, and others around the world, regardless of the tools available. It's what we do, and will continue to do until we eventually (hopefully) join with the more advanced nations.

Also, 3D printing will soon render gun regulations obsolete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elkpark- If you will go back a page you will see I did answer your question and apologized for how I phrased my post.

I did see that, and I was one of the people who "liked" your response. I was posing the same question to a different poster, as you can see from the quote in my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×