withoutlimits09
Paranormal Adept
If Gene had a spine and cared about children he would put all his anger and effort to campaign against swimming pools. If we removed pools, far more kids would be alive today, than if we removed guns.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Gun issues & Republicans & Democrats & Indys
- Thread starter Creepy Green Light
- Start date
Free episodes:
OK, so you're saying that more 33,000 kids in the U.S. each year are killed due to swimming accidents? Is that your contention?
withoutlimits09
Paranormal Adept
I am simply relying on the statistics done by the University Of Chicago economics scholar Steven Levitt. In his book he conclusively showed that swimming pools are more dangerous to US children than guns.
"In a given year, there is one drowning of a child for every 11,000 residential pools in the United States. (In a country with 6 million pools, this means that roughly 550 children under the age of ten drown each year.) Meanwhile, there is 1 child killed by a gun for every 1 million-plus guns. (In a country with an estimated 200 million guns, this means that roughly 175 children under ten die each year from guns.) The likelihood of death by pool (1 in 11,000) versus death by gun (1 in 1 million-plus) isn’t even close: Molly is roughly 100 times more likely to die in a swimming accident at Imani’s house than in gunplay at Amy’s."
Freakonomics » Chapter 5
Clearly, you probably think the author is a partisan Sara Palin like hack, but he isn't.
Steve Levitt is the William B. Ogden Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, where he directs the Becker Center on Chicago Price Theory.
Levitt received his BA from Harvard University in 1989 and his PhD from MIT in 1994. He has taught at Chicago since 1997.
In 2004, Levitt was awarded the John Bates Clark Medal, awarded to the most influential economist under the age of 40. In 2006, he was named one of Time magazine's “100 People Who Shape Our World.”
Steve co-authored Freakonomics, which spent over 2 years on the New York Times Best Seller list and has sold more than 4 million copies worldwide. SuperFreakonomics, released in 2009, includes brand new research on topics from terrorism to prostitution to global warming. Steve is also the co-author of the popular Freakonomics Blog.
icculus
Paranormal Maven
I think the lib/progressive crowd here is totally delusional. There is a pretty big difference between the segment of gun deaths perpetrated by Muslim extremists and everything else in the US. Muslim terrorists act on a belief system, that when used at scale, can take out 100s of people at a concert, 1000s of individuals in a city (such as NYC in 2001) and possibly 100,000+ with the use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, they would be happy to eliminate millions in they could. I seriously doubt gang bangers in Chicago, drug dealers and the mental ill will unite any time soon to pose such a threat.
Compared to 33,000 of all ages with guns?
withoutlimits09
Paranormal Adept
I posted the article and the credentials of the author. The conclusion was clear, swimming pools are more dangerous than guns. Cars are more dangerous than both by a large margin. If you disagree with this, then you can publish your work.
I assume you have some reading comprehension skills so I will let you read what the Harvard and MIT trained professor concluded in his work.
However, your lack of logic here is laughable. You act like these 33,000 deaths wouldn't happen if there weren't any guns. Like the murderer would lose all intent if guns magically disappeared. You do realize your number INCLUDES suicides and murders, right?
Those suicidal people might not have shot themselves, but rather mimicked Robin Williams and hung themselves, do we ban rope then? What about gang violence and gang wars, do they suddenly become peaceful with each other if there are no guns? Is that what you really believe? Of course not, these morally bankrupt thugs will find other ways to kill one another. The shooters at columbine had a small army of explosives, without guns, they would just spend more time creating bombs like the ones used by the Boston Bombers (which was a rice cooker, btw. We need to take a closer look at those killing devices too, especially if we ban guns. Rice isn't a need, we have bread).
Again, most of those 33,000 deaths would occur regardless of gun legislation. You are nieve or just ideologically blind if you can't understand that. If the will to commit murder exists, it exists, the gun is just a tool.
Personally, after witnessing the horrific car crash in Vegas, which saw a deranged driver crashing into a car of innocent people, I am convinced we need to take a serious look at cars. We don't need cars, we can rely on public transport, or we can make cars that cannot exceed 20 mph. It seems unreasonable to me these killing machines, many of which can travel 130 mph, should be allowed on the streets. How many deranged and drunk drivers have to kill people using these assault vehicles before Congress enacts some legislation to limit automobiles. Did you watch the news, it was horrific. If that woman didn't have access to a car, there would be more families together this Christmas.
Let's get to the real assault weapons, we need to legislate swimming pools and cars, and possibly rice cookers, the statistics speak for themselves.
Last edited:
kanakaris
Paranormal Adept
Creepy Green Light
Paranormal Adept
Agreed.
Your comments are laughable.
Number of car deaths in 2013 in U.S.: 10.345
You gave me the swimming pool argument already, concentrated on a small age group but not the total number of people. It doesn't come close.
Number of gun deaths by homicide: 11,208. Rest or due to suicide or other causes.
How many people in the U.S. after 9/11 died of Muslum extremists, and how many died of Christian/white extremists?
I'll answer the last:
Homegrown Extremism: Deadly Attacks Since 9/11 | The International Security Program
Homegrown Extremism: Deadly Attacks Since 9/11 | The International Security Program
News from the Utopian gun free zone of Chicago.
2,887 Shooting Victims In Gun-Controlled Chicago Year-To-Date - Breitbart
Decker
2,887 Shooting Victims In Gun-Controlled Chicago Year-To-Date - Breitbart
Decker
You forget that Chicago is not an island. That means that people can get their guns elsewhere and come to do their dirty work. The argument that it may have been caused by a single city's or state's gun control efforts is just plain foolish.
Creepy Green Light
Paranormal Adept
There are a lot of different arguable points in the grand scheme of things when it comes to guns. I just know that if I'm at McDonalds with my kids and a nut comes in with a gun, I want MY gun on my hip so we at least have a chance rather than nothing (I don't think just the use of harsh language up against a homicidal maniac with a gun is going to be of much good to my kids or myself - I'd rather have my 9mm).
And if someone were to break into my home - I'd rather be able to take care of the situation myself instead of hide with kids (if even possible), look for cell phone, call 911, then cross my fingers the intruders leave or don't find us and that the police come.
Every other point in the entire gun argument is secondary to these two things.
And if someone were to break into my home - I'd rather be able to take care of the situation myself instead of hide with kids (if even possible), look for cell phone, call 911, then cross my fingers the intruders leave or don't find us and that the police come.
Every other point in the entire gun argument is secondary to these two things.
Last edited:
And if a family keeps the guns safe from kids, will they have time to get them when someone invades their home?
What about accidents?
The “Good Guy With a Gun” Is a Myth
What about accidents?
The “Good Guy With a Gun” Is a Myth
DaveM
Paranormal Adept
Of course you can keep your firearms safe and still be able to get to them if needed. Your quoting from the slate.com article shows that your liberal bias is showing Gene, sorry. I can choose from any number of website articles, liberal or conservative, to prove whatever point I care to make. I look at it from this view point. Am I going to wait 15-20 minutes for the police to show up when someone is threatening my family or property? I choose not to wait and hope someone arrives in time. You may decide differently and that is certainly your choice.
What I see is that you really have no argument to make against the Slate article, so you just dismiss it without actually paying attention to the information provided. If you have a way to refute that information, I'm happy to hear it. But just using labels about "liberal bias" refutes nothing. It avoids the issue.
DaveM
Paranormal Adept
Actually Gene, I said that I can keep safe any firearms that I may own. You avoid refuting my statement. And yes, slate.com has a liberal slant. If I pull up a website that gives a different slant I am quite sure you would pooh pooh that article. So why would I bother. Besides, this is your website and you will always get in the final word as I have learned.
You didn't make an argument. I posted a link to the article, and you are dancing your way around it. Not very well though.
Are you trained in firearms use? How do you keep them from the kids?
Are you trained in firearms use? How do you keep them from the kids?
DaveM
Paranormal Adept
My argument is that no matter what website article I may mention you always refute it with one of your own. I don't see the need for a tit for tat dialogue. It's really none of your business but I will answer you nonetheless. There are no children in my household. I have taken training at a local gun range in my area.
I liken some of your responses to the nuns who taught about sex when I was growing up. I much prefer to get my info from someone more versed on the subject.
While we are at it, why don't you tell us all about your expertise in using firearms Gene? By your responses I have doubts you have ever fired a gun.