Related Information to Having A Gun In The House

Having A Gun In The House - Page 7

Seraph, I understand your grief at having lost a loved one, and I apologize in advance if anything I post may offend you. My father was in the military police when I was 6 years old, he took me to a range and showed me exactly what damage a gun could do to something. He taught me that guns are very dangerous and they are not to be played with. He let me shoot it a couple of times, and I discovered that recoil hurts. I looked at the gun with a newfound respect and never had the urge to play with it again. No one wants to play with a toy that hurts people.

House The Gun Having

I think Seraph puts a very human and sobering face to these ludicrous laws. Children, whether they are taught safety or not, are children! They will play with things and can have innocent accidents. That is what kids do.

By having guns in the house you increase the chances of a serious accident and there is no denying this.

Sure, kids could also hurt themselves playing with knives, or lawn mowers, or cars, or a whole lot of other things.

But I don't see anyone rushing to teach little Johnny how to use a knife, or a bottle of poison, or a car. The fact is you keep these things well away from children because even if you did teach them they are young, immature and likely to have accidents.

This simply isn't true Nighthawk. Prove it. Were the kids who caused the Columbine massacre not taught how to use guns? Are kids who take weapons into schools and start randomly shooting others not taught how to use guns?

Of course they're not.

That is 3,385 kids whose lives may have been saved had guns not been easily accessible. And that figure would disturb me a lot as a parent.

That is an extremely ignorant assumption you make about all those countries. They value life just as much as you Americans, how dare you sit on your high horse and tell other people they don't value life. What would you know about valuing life in other countries? Would you like to compare how easy your life has been to theirs and tell me who values life more? I'm sorry mate but you really should think before you make such ridiculous generalisations. How would you like to be abducted as a 10-year-old and forced to murder people or be murdered?

Furthermore, my whole point is children, whether they live here, or anywhere around the world should NOT be exposed to firearms. Guns were desinged to KILL people, not save them.

Having A Gun In The House History & Civil Business Politics

It's hard having to relive this and I thank you for your concern. I do agree with arvhic, there is too much human error, no matter what, and especially with Children. We people are unpredictable and children, not knowing of the danger of guns, will mess with them. Plus with the violence on TV today that these kids are seeing, it encourages them to play with guns and then things like this happen.

Page 7 House The Gun Having

arvhic, I must assume that you are using these tactics with premeditated malice. You are using straw man arguments, interjecting completely separate issues, and attempting to emotionally sway all the arguments.

Of course we, as parents, train our children in the use of knives, poisons, and cars. We also train them in the use of many other dangerous objects.

We tell our children how to properly use a knife to cut up their food. We tell them to never cut towards themselves. We teach them that they must never run with a knife in their hand, not even a butter knife.

We teach our children that the bleach, soap, wood polish, and all the other household poisons are out of bounds.

We teach our children that they must buckle up when they are in the car. We teach them to never play behind, in front of, or inside of a car. We explain to them that one day, when they are old enough to be responsible, they will be able to control one of the most dangerous weapons available. The family car.

Now you are using one of the most despicable, and most often used, fallacy in the gun debates. That is, you are mixing up the ages of the children.

You constantly bring up the fact that some young children are killed by accidents with guns in order to create an emotional response. Then, you turn around and point to the deliberate, criminal actions of older "children", and try to make those equivalent to the accidents.

Whenever children are taught proper behavior, accidents go down. My example, that you jumped all over, was Johnny, about 6 or 7 years old, who is taught by his dad that a gun is a dangerous tool, and how to use it safely and properly. Not so that Johnny can get to it and use it in his play, but so that he knows it is absolutely out of bounds for him to use it in any way. Then you jumped to something that happens in horrible situations, where horrible people USE children for horrible purposes. Again, you attempt to manipulate peoples' emotions by making Daddy's training Johnny about the safe use of guns equivalent to the criminal actions of disgusting people.

Finally, you use the Columbine massacre, where the young men (not children) who broke over 40 federal and state laws to deliberately kill people. Those monsters had many serious problems. If guns hadn't been available, what makes you think that they wouldn't have used something else to kill people?

Finally, you completely ignored the information contained in the statistics. You focused on one single point, excluding everything else, in order to manipulate emotions.

Out of that 3,385 "kids" who died, only 214 were accidents. That is still an extremely high and disturbing number. But it is also a very low number considering that there are just less than 300 million people in the US.

1,078 were suicides. Guns, while often used in suicides, do not have any place in the discussion about suicides. Guns are actually one of the least frequently used methods of teen suicide. They are probably the most decisive methods, but not having a gun available would make almost no difference in the numbers. While I don't have the site available now, I did some research on this a few days ago, deliberately looking for statistics outside of the gun debate. That is where I got this information.

Now, finally, we get to the big number. 1,990 homicides.

Again, that is a huge, and very disturbing number. Where do those homicides come from? The analyses that I have read over the years show that the vast majority of those homicides come from young people involved in drugs, gangs, and other criminal behavior. Once again, lack of guns might, might lower those numbers. But lack of guns, by itself, doesn't seem to reduce criminal behavior.

So, as far as I am concerned, those reasons show that the large number (3,385 deaths) should be used in the debate about guns with great care.

And, here, you once again show that your arguments are based on emotion. Although I have given you specific statistics that show guns are 60 times more likely to save a life than to take it, you reject it. The genie is released from the bottle. Guns exist. It is impossible to eliminate them, even in the most restrictive countries and conditions. Criminals can ALWAYS get guns, if they want them. And their ages don't matter. If nothing else, a reasonably proficient mechanic or machinist can MAKE a gun that will work for murder or suicide. They can also make pipe bombs, gas bombs, napalm, blow guns, bows, etc. The big thing is that with severly restrictive gun laws, especially those that ban all guns in private possession, deny individuals the right to defend themselves.

Offtopic but, QUOTE That is an extremely ignorant assumption you make about all those countries. They value life just as much as you Americans, how dare you sit on your high horse and tell other people they don't value life. What would you know about valuing life in other countries? Would you like to compare how easy your life has been to theirs and tell me who values life more? I'm sorry mate but you really should think before you make such ridiculous generalizations. How would you like to be abducted as a 10-year-old and forced to murder people or be murdered? That is an extremely ignorant assumption that you make about ME! I see that those people don't value life as much as me BECAUSE THEY SACRIFICE THEIR CHILDREN TO THEIR GOD OF VIOLENCE! I seek to protect my children, and the children of others. That is one of the reasons I joined the Armed Forces! I judge (yes JUDGE) that many people in many other cultures don't value life because they are so quick to take life and abuse liberty. Your very statement about a 10 year-old being abducted and forced to murder people PROVES MY POINT! If the abductors valued life, they wouldn't do it!

That is an extremely ignorant assumption that you make about ME! I see that those people don't value life as much as me BECAUSE THEY SACRIFICE THEIR CHILDREN TO THEIR GOD OF VIOLENCE! I seek to protect my children, and the children of others. That is one of the reasons I joined the Armed Forces! I judge (yes JUDGE) that many people in many other cultures don't value life because they are so quick to take life and abuse liberty. Your very statement about a 10 year-old being abducted and forced to murder people PROVES MY POINT! If the abductors valued life, they wouldn't do it!

House The Gun Having

Nighthawk I would rather debate the topic instead of making personal jibes. There is no malice nor tactics in my opinion.

Children are taught to use a knife at an age when it is deemed safe for them to use it. This certainly doesn't happen until they are in their teens. Now you were talking about teaching young children to use a gun safely, which I think is irresponsible.

You can't control your children. You may tell them something is wrong all you like but they are unpredictable. If guns are lying around and a child stumbles across one, and it happens to be loaded, then you are inviting trouble. I'm sure most parents would safely secure their firearms away from children. But clearly 3,385 child deaths would indicate they are still easily accessible. Seraph's tragic story illustrates my point quite well.

So you're telling me the Columbine massacre wasn't emotional? What about those parents who lost their children because some lunatic kids got hold of guns. Guns don't discriminate against age. Children still died because of guns.

Well actually, because they were teenage CHILDREN they broke 21 federal and state laws to obtain the weapons. And they did this very easily with the help of friends because guns are LEGAL! Had guns not been legal and easy to acquire this may have been prevented. These kids weren't criminals before this act, so don't make it out like this was carried out by hardened criminals. They were disturbed children who used firearms to murder innocent people.

They may have tried using other weapons, but we all know guns are the most efficient weapon for murdering people. Can I just add at this point, throughout Australia's history there has never been a massacre, or any attack carried out with gun wielding children at high schools. There have been several in the US.

If one child dies by accident or for whatever reason because of guns, that is one too many. How on earth am I manipulating these figures. They all have a common theme, guns killed children. Would some of these children have died without guns? I guess we will never know, that is the tragedy of legalising guns.

What does saving a life constitute? Does that mean shooting criminals? Is that on the premise that all criminals want to kill people, which is the biggest nonsense. You have to elaborate exactly what saving a life means and how you derive this figure.

You are right, criminals will always get guns. It's bad enough that they do that. Why put these dangerous weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens where it is more likely people will get hurt. You're really big on solving violence with violence. If you are serious about stopping crime, why wouldn't you focus your efforts on stopping it at its root cause instead of being reactive and shooting people as it happens?

Offtopic but, QUOTE That is an extremely ignorant assumption that you make about ME! I see that those people don't value life as much as me BECAUSE THEY SACRIFICE THEIR CHILDREN TO THEIR GOD OF VIOLENCE! Sacrifice their children? Are you for real? Find me one example mate. Yet again you have dragged religion into this. Why does everything have to do with religion? It is so easy to blame a set of scriptures, they can't argue back? Nighthawk I suggest you do a bit of research on child abductions in Africa before making ignorant and uniformed comment on cultures you clearly don't understand. And no, you DON'T have the right to judge others. I don't care if you're American or you have served in the military. Nobody made you god. And don't tell me Americans value life. Should we start comparing the conflicts and massacres the US has been involved in over the past 20 years with other countries? I promise you American guns and warheads have committed more than their fare share of carnage. Just ask the Iraqis what they think.

Sacrifice their children? Are you for real? Find me one example mate. Yet again you have dragged religion into this. Why does everything have to do with religion? It is so easy to blame a set of scriptures, they can't argue back? Nighthawk I suggest you do a bit of research on child abductions in Africa before making ignorant and uniformed comment on cultures you clearly don't understand. And no, you DON'T have the right to judge others. I don't care if you're American or you have served in the military. Nobody made you god.

And don't tell me Americans value life. Should we start comparing the conflicts and massacres the US has been involved in over the past 20 years with other countries? I promise you American guns and warheads have committed more than their fare share of carnage. Just ask the Iraqis what they think.

Having A Gun In The House

I taught my children, when 2 or 3 years old, not to pick up and use a kitchen cleaver, because it wasn't safe. I taught them not to put their hands on the burner on the stove. I taught them to wear seatbelts.

It is completely responsible to teach a 6 or 7 year-old child that a gun is a dangerous tool, that they must never, ever point a gun at anyone, that if they ever pick one up, that they must always know where the barrel is pointed, etc. It is also completely responsible to teach them that they must never, ever pick up a gun that is in the house, unless they are supervised by an adult. What is irresponsible about this type of training?

Yes, they did. Fortunately, they didn't also die because of the bombs that the two monsters made. Of course the Columbine massacre was emotional. And you are injecting it into this discussion in order to enflame the emotions, knowing that it has absolutely nothing to do with a responsible adult having a gun in his home for protection of his life, his family, and his liberty.

They broke all sorts of laws in how they got the weapons. Forbidding me to have guns in my home, in order to protect my family, would have had NO effect, whatsoever, in keeping such monsters at bay.

You are right. If one child dies by accident in the bathtub, it is one too many. If one child dies by accident by drinking poison in the home, it is one too many. If one child dies in a car accident, it is one too many. If one child dies by drowning, that is one too many.

However, look here:
https://www.keepandbeararms.org/information...tem.asp?ID=2256
This is a chart of deaths by unintentional injuries for the year 1998, in the US. Death by unintentional injury by guns is a very low percentage.

What will you do to reduce the other types of injuries? You appear to propose to take away my personal liberty to deal with guns. Will you also take away other liberties to eliminate automobile injuries?

That is what it boils down to. Guns are legal in the US, for adults. In order to take away all the guns, as Australia did, would require that the government directly attack the liberty of the citizens.

The link I offered in an earlier post detailed exactly what was meant by "saving a life", and how they came to those figures. A very high percentage of the time, when a law-abiding citizen merely brandished a handgun, the criminals either surrendered or ran. Very, very seldom is a shot fired, yet the crime is halted. Now, perhaps I was wrong when I said 60 times more lives are saved than lost. Perhaps it is 60 times more crimes are STOPPED than are committed with a gun. I don't remember, and am not going to look it up.

What I do know is that guns allow the weaker elements of society (women, non-warrior men) to protect themselves where lack of guns allowed warriors to threaten, dominate, and rule society. With a gun, a 100 lb. woman can subdue a 250 lb. man who is intent on raping her. If she is not allowed a gun, she is at the complete mercy of any man who wishes her ill.

A thin, weak, sick man with a gun, can protect his family, life, and home from a burglar or any other attacker. Without the gun, he is at a huge disadvantage. Even if the attacker is only carrying a baseball bat or a knife, if the small man or the woman has no gun, the attacker is at a huge advantage.

BTW, what, exactly, is the root cause of crime? That is a huge debate all of its own! As for advocating violence to stop violence, I have NEVER in this discussion advocated anyone shooting anyone else, for any reason. When violence is threatened against me, my family, or my friends, I want the ability to respond and stop the violence. The vast majority of the time, simply HAVING a weapon is sufficient to stop the violence before it starts.

Offtopic but, QUOTE Sacrifice their children? Are you for real? Find me one example mate. Palestinian leaders who encourage their youth, as young as 12 years old, to strap bombs on themselves in order to kill Israeli youth. The 12 year-old is sacrificed. As for the reference to "their god of violence", I was using a metaphor (or whatever it was) for those who sacrifice their children for whatever violent reason. QUOTE And don't tell me Americans value life. Thank you. We must certainly value life far less than the Vietnamese Communist dictatorships, the Chinese leadership, the Hutus in Rwanda. Thank you very much for pointing out that we also value life less than the Palestinians who send their children with bombs into shopping malls and discos. We also obviously value life far less than anyone else in the entire world. (Before you accuse me of once again using a broad brush, notice that I am speaking specifically of those individual who have done these horrible things.) I will continue to judge that my culture is better than many others. I do value life. I want to see every child grow up to fulfill his or her full potential. I don't want to ever even HEAR of another abortion, of another murder, of another rape. BTW, what are YOU doing with these arguments, if not JUDGING the US, and finding us lower than your ideals?

Palestinian leaders who encourage their youth, as young as 12 years old, to strap bombs on themselves in order to kill Israeli youth. The 12 year-old is sacrificed. As for the reference to "their god of violence", I was using a metaphor (or whatever it was) for those who sacrifice their children for whatever violent reason.

Thank you. We must certainly value life far less than the Vietnamese Communist dictatorships, the Chinese leadership, the Hutus in Rwanda. Thank you very much for pointing out that we also value life less than the Palestinians who send their children with bombs into shopping malls and discos. We also obviously value life far less than anyone else in the entire world. (Before you accuse me of once again using a broad brush, notice that I am speaking specifically of those individual who have done these horrible things.)

I will continue to judge that my culture is better than many others. I do value life. I want to see every child grow up to fulfill his or her full potential. I don't want to ever even HEAR of another abortion, of another murder, of another rape.

BTW, what are YOU doing with these arguments, if not JUDGING the US, and finding us lower than your ideals?

Having Gun The House - Page 7

I guess when it comes to children with guns, it all goes back to the illicit thrill of doing something you know you aren't supposed to. My father showed me guns and taught me how to shoot them and showed me exactly what happens when I shoot it. My father said, "This gun is not a toy, if you ever want to use it, let me know and I'll take you somewhere safe so you can use it." I never asked for it again. One day a friend of mine came over and we were playing in my fathers bedroom, (illicit thrill), and I showed him the gun, He asked me how it worked and I told him, just like a water gun, but real guns hurt your hand when you shoot them. He said, "Oh" then we got our water guns and shot each other all over the house. (Another illicit thrill which got me in bad trouble.)

Offtopic but, Do me a favor nighthawk, don't hold an entire culture responsible for the evil it has to endure, I don't hold modern America responsible for what early America did to the Native Americans. I don't hold the Germans responsible for Hitler.

Other than that I agree with you 100% Accidents happen due to ignorance, Ignorance can be wiped out with learning.

Another thing, the Columbine kids were in high school, they were old enough to plan this out, they were old enough to know that getting a gun is illegal, but they did it anyway. They were disturbed young men, not innocent little kids.

Edited: Tastanagee on 7th Dec, 2005 - 5:03pm

Having Gun The House Politics Business Civil & History - Page 7

Nighthawk you were suggesting it is ok to teach young children how to use a gun in an earlier post. This is what I disagree with. Of course you are going to teach your children safety. But even if you are the most responsible adult, children are still children. You can not tell me all children are responsible at a young age to never play around. Every second show on television these days has violence involving guns.

And if they get hold of a firearm accidents can happen. If there are no firearms accidents can't happen involving guns.

I would not want a young child, or an old one for that matter picking up a gun in my house. period.

This argument of accidental deaths by comparison is a fallacy. Guns are DESIGNED to kill people. Bath tubs, poison (often used for household chores) and cars are NOT designed to kill people. Gun deaths can be prevented. These other accidental deaths can not because they occur by the accidental use of an object not designed to kill. They are accidents in the purest sense. Because guns are designed to take someone's life you can argue that you can't really have an accidental gun death. The weapon is just doing its job. And accidental deaths make up a very small proportion of gun-related deaths anyway.

These kids, and they were high school students, got hold of firearms as easily as they would get hold of an alcoholic beverage. Through their mates.

My whole argument is that when you legalise guns they are much EASIER to obtain and therefore you are much more likely to see death and injury as a result. Considering the number of gun-related deaths the US has compared to similar countries, this is a fact. It's really just plain logic and common sense, I don't quite understand why you can't grasp this.

You believe it is a liberty for everyone to have a gun. I believe someone shooting me with a gun takes away my liberty and basic human rights. I would argue the parents of Columbine would agree. How on earth can you dismiss one of the worst high school massacres in US history from this debate?

Your argument is to solve violence with more violence, or at least the threat of violence. My argument is that by doing that you end up with more bloodshed and become as bad as the perpetrator.

Nighthawk are you suggesting that guns prevent the incidence of rape? This is ridiculous mate and there are no figures that you could ever produce to substantiate such claims.

I understand what you are saying about protecting the weaker people in society. And I admire your concern. But you can not sort out criminals through more violence, especially from the civilian population. I've reported on serious crimes for many years and have a lot of mates in the police force. The real issue with the majority of crime is socio-economic. It can't be solved by violence, you have to fix the cause of crime. The reasons why people become criminals. Just like terrorism, it must be solved proactively, not reactively. If you really want to understand criminals, go talk to some, that's what I've done. Of course there is organised crime which is a different story.

I have heard of ONE example of a Palestinian youth being used for this purpose and he couldn't even go through with it. Name me some more. You can't judge a whole population by one incident. Furthermore the parents of this child had no idea.

Well of course Americans must be the best, it's only natural. Every culture has its own beauty and it is only through ignorance and a lack of knowledge we judge others. The US has a lot of problems, especially with its affairs overseas. There obviously is a lot you don't know about what your administration is doing and has done in the past if you believe that Americans are known for valuing life. So don't parade your culture as being the standard of human values, because I promise you there are many other countries with a much better record.