Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

The_Jazz · 01-30-2006, 02:32 PM

Focusing strictly on the CDC data and the questions that it raises, I would love to see the numbers on what happens when a gun is discharged in the home. That would settle this little controversy once and for all. I knew that the CDC data was out there since I've seen it several times, but I don't recall ever seeing anything along these lines. However, I can see where it would be a statistical nightmare to collect, especially since the CDC gets their information strictly from hospitals and medical facilities as a rule, regardless of the study. Then again, I'd also like to see a study on gun injuries including fatalities, which would also go to settle my point one way or the other. I don't really see where DGUs that do not result in firing are really relevant to the arguement one way or the other since all along my entire point has been that once the gun is discharged, the person on the other end was not an intruder. A suicide, accidential victim or domestic violence victim would all be under the umbrella of my definition.

Your point about accidents and suicides "obviously end in a dead body" I think is a little farfetched. Granted, suicides are much more likely to end in a death with a gun involved, but certainly not always. Accidents, however, are a much different story. Please remember that this entire thread was started by a girl who was wounded by a playmate. Gun accidents are certainly not always fatal by their very definition. To say otherwise is akin to saying that all car accidents where the car is totalled are fatal - they very well may be, but lots of people survive them every year.

I'm not sure why you're harping on the Brady data when I've already conceeded that it might be suspect. I also think that you're missing my greater point from earlier as far as the number of children's gun-related deaths anually. Although I'm sure it wasn't intentional, stating that there are less than 1,000 deaths annually from guns for kids under 15 comes off as callous. If having kids in car seats only saves 1,000 lives annually, don't you think that it makes sense to have them there? My entire motivation for even entering into the discussion on this thread was to point out that gun owners need to demonstrate responsibility for their weapons, not that they should be allowed to own them. We're talking about the third-leading cause of death among children aged 10-14. Are you telling me that if there was a shot that we could give them to make them immune to the 4th leading cause of death, whatever that may be, that you would be against that.

I have the feeling that we're closer together in opinion that you guys realize. As I stated earlier, I by no means advocate elimiating gun ownership. However, I do think that anyone who owns a gun needs to be able to demonstrate a level of responsibility at least as high as owning a car. If that means that you need to buy insurance, register it and demonstrate that you know how to safely store, maintain and discharge it, then all the better. And anyone who lives with a child should be held to an even higher safety standard. I'm not advocating that anyone needs to do anything other than show that they know the basics that the NRA tells all of us that we need to know.

OK - let the flaming begin...

01-30-2006, 02:32 PM	#33 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Focusing strictly on the CDC data and the questions that it raises, I would love to see the numbers on what happens when a gun is discharged in the home. That would settle this little controversy once and for all. I knew that the CDC data was out there since I've seen it several times, but I don't recall ever seeing anything along these lines. However, I can see where it would be a statistical nightmare to collect, especially since the CDC gets their information strictly from hospitals and medical facilities as a rule, regardless of the study. Then again, I'd also like to see a study on gun injuries including fatalities, which would also go to settle my point one way or the other. I don't really see where DGUs that do not result in firing are really relevant to the arguement one way or the other since all along my entire point has been that once the gun is discharged, the person on the other end was not an intruder. A suicide, accidential victim or domestic violence victim would all be under the umbrella of my definition. Your point about accidents and suicides "obviously end in a dead body" I think is a little farfetched. Granted, suicides are much more likely to end in a death with a gun involved, but certainly not always. Accidents, however, are a much different story. Please remember that this entire thread was started by a girl who was wounded by a playmate. Gun accidents are certainly not always fatal by their very definition. To say otherwise is akin to saying that all car accidents where the car is totalled are fatal - they very well may be, but lots of people survive them every year. I'm not sure why you're harping on the Brady data when I've already conceeded that it might be suspect. I also think that you're missing my greater point from earlier as far as the number of children's gun-related deaths anually. Although I'm sure it wasn't intentional, stating that there are less than 1,000 deaths annually from guns for kids under 15 comes off as callous. If having kids in car seats only saves 1,000 lives annually, don't you think that it makes sense to have them there? My entire motivation for even entering into the discussion on this thread was to point out that gun owners need to demonstrate responsibility for their weapons, not that they should be allowed to own them. We're talking about the third-leading cause of death among children aged 10-14. Are you telling me that if there was a shot that we could give them to make them immune to the 4th leading cause of death, whatever that may be, that you would be against that. I have the feeling that we're closer together in opinion that you guys realize. As I stated earlier, I by no means advocate elimiating gun ownership. However, I do think that anyone who owns a gun needs to be able to demonstrate a level of responsibility at least as high as owning a car. If that means that you need to buy insurance, register it and demonstrate that you know how to safely store, maintain and discharge it, then all the better. And anyone who lives with a child should be held to an even higher safety standard. I'm not advocating that anyone needs to do anything other than show that they know the basics that the NRA tells all of us that we need to know. OK - let the flaming begin...