Mass shooting in San Bernandino

[Commodore]

And I was only thinking of a clarifying law, limiting the types of guns allowed, specifying for hunting, no semi or full automatic, and limiting all to single shots.

Hunting is not why gun rights exist. They exist to empower individuals to defend themselves from people and states that would do them harm.

Events like these are always an opportunity for states to curtail individual liberty, but the truth is, violence and gun violence have been declining precipitously in the US for decades.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Yeah well Scot, I'm pretty sure our Freedom hating country also has much stricter safety regulations around swimming pools...

And the death of children aren't the only deaths that matter, I know you didn't say that but responding to "guns are killing us all" with "pools are killing kids" isn't exactly addressing the point.

Karaddin,
 

You make a fair point.  I trotted out this chapter of Freakinomics  because statistics about the number of firearm deaths has already been brought out in the context of compairing them to motor vehicle deaths.  As such I thought it would be interesting to look at it in the context of another item that, like firearms, have little practical utility.  No one needs a swimming pool. 

This chapter in Freakinomics, which is where I heard about swimming pool v. gun death statistics, discusses the issue by compairing children's firearm deaths v. children's deaths in pool accidents.  It's the only place I know of such a comparison so I offered it for discussion.

My family has neither a firearm nor a swimming pool.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

OAR,
 

Frequently in discussions over whether to enact controls on private ownership of firearms children's safty is offered as a rational for more restrictive policies.  Hence the discussion of this as it affects children under 10.  Additionally, if you haven't read the book you wouldn't know that the the Chapter is presented from the context of one of the author's having had a child die by drowning in a swimming pool.

You've ignored the better part of my post, and failed to address most of my points.

To the one point you managed to somewhat address- we are not currently discussing children's safety and even if we were you have failed to address why 10 is the appropriate cut off for 'children.'

The author's personal tragedy doesn't mitigate the issues in that article's reasoning and conclusion, and is completely irrelevant to your choice to insert it into this discussion.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

It's the only place I'm aware of that such a comparision between pool deaths and gun accidents are made.  I don't have the raw numbers the authors based their discussion upon and have no control over the context in which the chapter was offered.  I thought it would add to the discussion.  My apologies that it does not.

[Proudfeet]

Karaddin,
 

You make a fair point.  I trotted out this chapter of Freakinomics simply because statistics about the number of firearm deaths has already been brought out in the context of compairing them to motor vehicle deaths.  As such I thought it would be interesting to look at it in the context of another item that, like firearms, have little practical utility.  No one needs a swimming pool. 

This chapter in Freakinomics, which is where I heard about swimming pool v. gun death statistics, discusses the issue by compairing childrens firearm deaths v. childrens deaths in pool accidents.  It's the only place I know of such a comparison so I offered it for discussion.

My family has neither a firearm nor a swimming pool.

It is a poor comparison Scot. The assumption for such a comparison has to be that children are interacting with them at an equal rate, which quite frankly is ridiculous and rather dishonest. You wouldn't expect Molly to be having "gunplay" at Amy's at all. Also, what Onion said.

And swimming pools have practical utility. Its an avenue for exercise that places less burden on your joints, be useful for rehabilitation of people with injuries and such. I'll concede that it isn't needed, but I'd object to it having "little practical utility".

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

Hunting is not why gun rights exist. They exist to empower individuals to defend themselves from people and states that would do them harm.

Events like these are always an opportunity for states to curtail individual liberty, but the truth is, violence and gun violence have been declining precipitously in the US for decades.

But we no longer live in a tyrannical monarchy (which is what their fear was at the time).  We have a well-developed system of laws and ways of changing those laws.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Proudfeet,
 

The fundamental problem with finding a statistically comparision for firearms is that there is very little to compair to firearms which really have only one purpose as a tool and that is to kill things, or practice killing things.  I thought pools comparision was clever as they are not "needed" in the classic sense of the word.

Even knives, which are weapons, have serious practical utility as tools for cooking.

[aceluby]

You are correct scot that there is a fundamental problem finding a statistical comparison.  So why try?  Why not look at it from its own merit?  Comparing firearms to pools is dishonest at best, and incredibly stupid and irrelevant at worst.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ace,

I believe the argument was attempted because statistics are frequently used to advocate in favor of stricter controls upon private ownership of firearms.  Statistics, as we all know, can be deceiving.  I don't think either author of Freakinomics has a deep and abiding desire for or against the private ownership of firearms and neither (as far as I know) privately owns a firearm. 

Their book (books) are discussions of the uses and methodologies employed in the use and analysis of economics statistics.  They also make the argument that the reduction in crime that we saw in the mid-1990s was largely based upon the Roe v. Wade decision. 

That demographically, the legalization of abortion in the early 1970's led to fewer unwanted babies and thus fewer criminals.

[Proudfeet]

Proudfeet,
 

The fundamental problem with finding a statistically comparision for firearms is that there is very little to compair to firearms which really have only one purpose as a tool and that is to kill things, or practice killing things.  I thought pools comparision was clever as they are not "needed" in the classic sense of the word.

Even knives, which are weapons, have serious practical utility as tools for cooking.

Oh, I got that. I have an unfortunate bad habit of arguing nothing on semantics. Sorry.

The statistics thing is just really poor though. I mean, you could make a better case arguing total deaths from guns vs drowning, but deaths per gun vs per pool? I can't even imagine what the author was thinking.

[The Human Abstract]

Hmm.  Actually I think it's a great comparison.  Of course now we are referring to accidental death which is a different animal than the subject at hand.  

But in this case, both items are owned primarily for entertainment purposes and can result in a child's accidental death if not properly secured.  Of course, a responsible adult with children and a swimming pool knows that access to the pool should be locked up at all times.  Likewise, guns should be stowed in a secured gun safe.  

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

  Likewise, guns should be stowed in a secured gun safe.  

But if the gun is secured in the gun safe it limits its use in sefl-defense

I happen to agree with you, and I always kept mine locked up, but making that a requirement would eliminate one of the primary reasons for having the gun for most people

[The Human Abstract]

But if the gun is secured in the gun safe it limits its use in sefl-defense

I happen to agree with you, and I always kept mine locked up, but making that a requirement would eliminate one of the primary reasons for having the gun for most people

I actually think the primary reason is entertainment but I admit that's another possible reason.   I know someone who keeps guns for self defense and has a gun safe, though.  I suppose it would slow you down.  

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

I actually think the primary reason is entertainment but I admit that's another possible reason.   I know someone who keeps guns for self defense and has a gun safe, though.  I suppose it would slow you down.  

I agree that the primary reason is entertainment, most just don't admit that. They pound their chests yelling self defense

 

[aceluby]

It's a catch 22.  The primary reason for owning a gun is 'self defense' (ignoring that the VAST majority are never used for this purpose), but that means keeping it around and easily loaded (or pre-loaded) in order for it to actually work better than a vase.  But doing that increases the likelihood DRAMATICALLY that an accident happens, which happens FAR more frequently than the gun's 'primary' function of self defense.

[Free Northman Reborn]

It's a catch 22.  The primary reason for owning a gun is 'self defense' (ignoring that the VAST majority are never used for this purpose), but that means keeping it around and easily loaded (or pre-loaded) in order for it to actually work better than a vase.  But doing that increases the likelihood DRAMATICALLY that an accident happens, which happens FAR more frequently than the gun's 'primary' function of self defense.

That is such a nonsense argument. A gun should either be in your safe, or under your direct control. At all times.

Hence, the gun that you are currently using for self defense should be on you or within arms reach, and all the others should be in your safe.

Hence almost zero chance for accidents or negligent use.

[Trebla]

I just heard reports that the couple dropped their 6 month old baby off at grandma's and then went on the shooting spree! Its going to be very interesting to hear what the motive and background of this couple is. Seems inconceivable to me that a mother would knowingly abandon a child that young. She must have known that it was unlikely that she would escape. Death or jail were likely the only outcomes. I just struggle to see how a mother could knowingly do this.

Yeah that stunned me when I read that. Although they may have thought they could get away with it: they wore masks and allegedly wore body armor. That doesn't exactly fit the bill of wanting to go out in a blaze of glory. She probably wasn't counting on the guy acting incredibly nervous at the party and basically giving himself away to the survivors,

But had they gotten away with it?

"Hello daughter, how did the doctors appointment go?"

"It went GREAT, mom!"

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I'm surprised that no oned in the media has attempted to get Trump, Cruz, Carson, et. al. To advise how the US's liberal policy with regard to firearms ownership, sale, and purchase hasn't made it easier for terrorists to come to the US and engage in attacks? 

[Kalbear]

When I get a pool I'm going to give every kid that swims in it a gun so that they'll be safer.

[aceluby]

That is such a nonsense argument. A gun should either be in your safe, or under your direct control. At all times.

Hence, the gun that you are currently using for self defense should be on you or within arms reach, and all the others should be in your safe.

Hence almost zero chance for accidents or negligent use.

What's nonsense is being afraid so much that you need to have a gun on you at all times, including cooking dinner for your children or sleeping with your wife.  It's also hard to have a gun in your direct control when you're asleep for 1/3rd of the day.

But you keep pretending it's nonsense.  Because I'm sure you're absolutely immune to all accidents.