Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

5-Year-Old North Dakota Boy Shoots 9-Month-Old Brother to Death


Sly_Paragon

Recommended Posts

Study after study has shown that having a gun in the home puts the people in the home and others more at risk of injury or death than not having a gun in the home.

I would like to see those studies as I believe it.

I myself, am wrestling with the idea of getting my PAL here in BC and getting a .22 rifle of some sort as I am rural and for in case I need it to defend and/or put down one of my farm animals...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For people using the "keep guns locked up" argument...

keep in mind most pro-gun cowboy wannabe's will counter with the argument of: "seconds matter" "nothing more useless then an unloaded gun" "keeping a gun in a safe makes it hard to access it in time of need".

for them, only a loaded gun under their pillow will give them the peace of mind to go to sleep at night. and some cant even leave the house with out it.

its become an out of control gun fetish culture unseen in any other stable country. Usually guns proliferate in states with instability, and war Like Libya, Iraq,somalia type of countries.

Im usually libertarian on most types of issues, and used to be pro-guns actually, but there is nothing that can justify this nonsense gun fetish muricans have...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"With great power comes great responsibility" and the responsibility that a gun entitles is so great, it's not something that the average person should be given. Most of them understand this but some don't and those people are the reason it should not be given cause they endanger the lives of everyone around them.

This is just so tragic, parents must feel terrible. Wish the best for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or don't have them openly lying around. Period.

Really.

Here is a Conservative meme/"story" some dumb ass put online which is circulated regularly now:

Yesterday I placed my shotgun on the front porch, gave it six shells, and noticing it had no legs, placed it in a wheelchair to help it get around. I left it alone and went about my business.

While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the boy across the street picked up my yard, a girl walked her dog down the street, and quite a few cars stopped at the stop sign near my house.

pixel.gif
pixel.gif

After 10 hours, I checked on the shotgun. It was still sitting in the wheelchair. It had not rolled outside and It had not killed anyone in spite of many opportunities that had been presented. It had not even loaded itself.

Can you imagine how surprised I was with all the hype about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people? Either the media is wrong and the killing is by people misusing guns or I'm in possession of the laziest gun in the world. So now I'm off to check on my spoons, because I hear they make people fat.

Notice the problem here? All the while trying to make the argument that guns don't kill people but people kill people, albeit the most popular method being with a gun, the author went on to demonstrate his/her irresponsibility without even knowing it. And most conservatives don't recognize it either. These are precisely the people who shouldn't own a gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For people using the "keep guns locked up" argument...

keep in mind most pro-gun cowboy wannabe's will counter with the argument of: "seconds matter" "nothing more useless then an unloaded gun" "keeping a gun in a safe makes it hard to access it in time of need".

for them, only a loaded gun under their pillow will give them the peace of mind to go to sleep at night. and some cant even leave the house with out it.

its become an out of control gun fetish culture unseen in any other stable country. Usually guns proliferate in states with instability, and war Like Libya, Iraq,somalia type of countries.

Im usually libertarian on most types of issues, and used to be pro-guns actually, but there is nothing that can justify this nonsense gun fetish muricans have...

And statistics show that such a weapon is far more likely to kill a family member than it is an intruder. Basically, it's a solution that's far more dangerous than the situation that it's supposed to be protecting people from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really.

Here is a Conservative meme/"story" some dumb ass put online which is circulated regularly now:

Yesterday I placed my shotgun on the front porch, gave it six shells, and noticing it had no legs, placed it in a wheelchair to help it get around. I left it alone and went about my business.

While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the boy across the street picked up my yard, a girl walked her dog down the street, and quite a few cars stopped at the stop sign near my house.

pixel.gif
pixel.gif

After 10 hours, I checked on the shotgun. It was still sitting in the wheelchair. It had not rolled outside and It had not killed anyone in spite of many opportunities that had been presented. It had not even loaded itself.

Can you imagine how surprised I was with all the hype about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people? Either the media is wrong and the killing is by people misusing guns or I'm in possession of the laziest gun in the world. So now I'm off to check on my spoons, because I hear they make people fat.

Notice the problem here? All the while trying to make the argument that guns don't kill people but people kill people, albeit the most popular method being with a gun, the author went on to demonstrate his/her irresponsibility without even knowing it. And most conservatives don't recognize it either. These are precisely the people who shouldn't own a gun.

Clearly he forgot the gun also had no arms with which to push the wheelchair. :rolleyes:

Not everyone is smart enough to realize the fallacies in their argument. There are far too many instances of children accidentally firing guns (often killing or injuring others around them) that were left unprotected and loaded to think that doing anything other than following strict safety protocols with guns is necessary 100% of the time.

EDIT: I wonder if the author was legitimately stupid enough to do a proof of concept test in this case, or if he's just grandstanding to prove a point...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see those studies as I believe it.

I myself, am wrestling with the idea of getting my PAL here in BC and getting a .22 rifle of some sort as I am rural and for in case I need it to defend and/or put down one of my farm animals...

Here is an article with a couple of links

The health risk of having a gun in the home
By Susan Perry | 12/17/12
RTR2V3SK_0.jpg
REUTERS/Joshua Lott
The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000 recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes.

Having a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death — and that of your spouse and children.

And it doesn’t matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own.

If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide.

Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a home break-in.

The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000 recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes.

Notice that the recommendation doesn’t call for parents to simply lock up their guns. It stresses that the weapons need to be taken out of the house.

Study after study has been conducted on the health risks associated with guns in the home. One of the latest was a meta-review published in 2011 by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. He examined all the scientific literature to date on the health risks and benefits of gun ownership.

What he found was sobering, to say the least.

Accidental deaths

To begin with, having a gun in the home is a risk factor for serious accidental injury and death. As Hemenway points out, death certificate data indicate that 680 Americans were killed accidentally with guns each year between 2003 and 2007. Half those victims were under the age of 25.

Children aged 5 to 14 in the United States are 11 times more likely to die from an accidental gunshot wound than children in other developed countries.

Nonfatal gun injuries occur at the average rate of 20 a day in the United States — and that doesn’t include pellet-gun injuries (which average 45 day) or injuries that don’t involve a bullet wound (like powder burns and recoil injuries).

“One study of nonfatal accidental shootings found that the majority were self- inflicted, most involved handguns, and more than one third of the injuries required hospitalization,” writes Hemenway. “Injuries often occurred during fairly routine gun handling — cleaning a gun, loading and unloading, target shooting, and so on.”

Suicides

An average of 46 Americans committed suicide with guns each day between 2003 and 2007. In fact, more Americans killed themselves with guns during those years than with all other methods combined.

Gun owners and their families are not more suicidal than non-gun-owners, research shows. No are they more likely to have a history of depression or other mental health problems.

But they — and their families — are at significantly increased risk of successfully taking their lives with a gun. The reason: Guns are more lethal than other methods.

One study found, reports Hemenway, that “in states with more guns, there were more suicides (because there were more firearm suicides), even after controlling for the percentage of the state’s population with serious mental illness, alcohol dependence or abuse, illicit substance dependence or abuse, and the percentage unemployed, living below the poverty level, and in urban areas.”

But “there was no association between gun prevalence and a state’s nonfirearm suicide rate,” he adds.

Homicides

Two-thirds of all murders between 2003 and 2007 involved guns. The average number of Americans shot and killed daily during those years was 33. Of those, one was a child (0 to 14 years), five were teenagers (15 to 19 years) and seven were young adults (20 to 24 years), on average.

Children in the U.S. get murdered with guns at a rate that is 13 times higher than that of other developed nations. For our young people aged 15 to 24, the rate is 43 times higher.

“The presence of a gun makes quarrels, disputes, assaults, and robberies more deadly. Many murders are committed in a moment of rage,” writes Hemenway.

“For example, a large percentage of homicides — and especially homicides in the home — occur during altercations over matters such as love, money, and domestic problems, involving acquaintances, neighbors, lovers, and family members; often the assailant or victim has been drinking. Only a small minority of homicides appear to be the carefully planned acts of individuals with a single-minded intention to kill. Most gun killings are indistinguishable from nonfatal gun shootings; it is just a question of the caliber of the gun, whether a vital organ is hit, and how much time passes before medical treatment arrives.”

Benefits?

The possible health benefits of gun ownership are twofold: deterring crime and stopping crimes in progress. But there are no credible studies, says Hemenway, that higher levels of gun ownership actually do these things.

“The main reason people give for having a handgun in the home is protection, typically against stranger violence,” he writes. “However, it is important to recognize that the home is a relatively safe place, especially from strangers. For example, fewer than 30% of burglaries in the United States (2003-2007) occur when someone is at home. In the 7% of burglaries when violence does occur, the burglar is more likely to be an intimate (current or former) and also more likely to be a relative or known acquaintance than a stranger. Although people typically spend most of their time at home, only 5% of all the crimes of violence perpetrated by strangers occur at home.”

In fact, adds Hemenway, research shows that most self-defense use of guns is not socially desirable. He describes one study in which “criminal court judges from across the United States read the 35 descriptions of the reported self-defense firearm uses from 2 national surveys and found that, even if description of the event was accurate, in most of the cases, the self-defense gun use was probably illegal. Many were arguments that escalated into gun use.”

Real risks

“There are real and imaginary situations when it might be beneficial to have a gun in the home,” Hemenway concludes. “For example, in the Australian film Mad Max, where survivors of the apocalypse seem to have been predominantly psychopathic male bikers, having a loaded gun would seem to be very helpful for survival, and public health experts would probably advise people in that world to obtain guns.”

“However, for most contemporary Americans, the scientific studies suggest that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit,” he adds. “There are no credible studies that indicate otherwise.”

Hemenway’s review appeared in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine and can be read in full online.

If you want more evidence do some research yourself mate , not hard to find information that proves having a gun in the home puts the people in the home and others in more danger of injury or death than not having a gun in the home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now guns are being blamed for suicide? :lol: I always thought that was a mental health issue.

So in other events, people who drive are more likely to get into a car accident? People who surf are more likely to get attacked by a shark? People who weight train are more likely to tear a muscle? People who skydive are more likely to die from a free fall to the earth? You don't say!!! There are certain risks associated with everything. I'm sick of these EXTREMELY rare instances that cause a knee jerk reaction to the "guns are baaaaad" crowd. You don't like guns? Don't buy one. You can't legislate away evil or stupidity. I'll take my chances with firearm ownership.
I take any articles written by the cesspool at Harvard with a grain of salt anyway.

I'm still waiting for an explanation on why the violent crime and murder rate is so high in Chicago, Baltimore and Detroit, cities with the most strict gun control laws in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see those studies as I believe it.

I myself, am wrestling with the idea of getting my PAL here in BC and getting a .22 rifle of some sort as I am rural and for in case I need it to defend and/or put down one of my farm animals...

Not a gun guy but I think you'd need something more heavy duty than a .22 to put down a farm animal with one shot guaranteed.

Btw. Your environment and usage is what I consider justification for owning the correct gun fwiw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do not blame the gun for this tragedy jsut as you don't blame the car in a drunken driving incident. This is solely on the gun owner who did not store and handle the firearm properly at all, resulting in the death of this infant.

Just like we have in Canada, America needs tougher rules on the storing of firearms. It also needs to better educate it's citizens before allowing them to own a firearm. There is nothing wrong with making it a requirement to complete an educational course in order to own and purchase firearms so I see no logical reason to not make it mandatory.

What would be ridiculous is to look at banning the public from owning firearms. Many of us, including myself, are law abiding citizens who properly use, clean and store our firearms and should not be punished because there are morons out there who don't handle them properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do not blame the gun for this tragedy jsut as you don't blame the car in a drunken driving incident. This is solely on the gun owner who did not store and handle the firearm properly at all, resulting in the death of this infant.

Just like we have in Canada, America needs tougher rules on the storing of firearms. It also needs to better educate it's citizens before allowing them to own a firearm. There is nothing wrong with making it a requirement to complete an educational course in order to own and purchase firearms so I see no logical reason to not make it mandatory.

What would be ridiculous is to look at banning the public from owning firearms. Many of us, including myself, are law abiding citizens who properly use, clean and store our firearms and should not be punished because there are morons out there who don't handle them properly.

* “But car accidents kill more people than guns, so why all the fuss?” Because cars are necessary to move around, while guns (especially semi-automatic weapons) are not a necessity, but a choice usually justified on the grounds of sportsmanship, hunting or self-defense — none of which require anything like the number and types of guns currently permitted by US law. By the way, if you don’t recognize this as a red herring (another fallacious argument) you really ought to take logic 101.

Incidentally, terrorist attacks in the United States too have killed far fewer people than cars, and yet we have spent billions (without counting two wars, of course) to make us more secure. While I don’t actually think that this was the best way of spending tax payers’ money if the goal really was to increase our security (better to spend it on police intelligence operations, for instance), it seems interesting to me that the same people who absolutely refuse to even consider mild gun regulations are often the same ones who are most vocal supporters of strong governmental action to protect us from very rare threats. Make up your mind, people, consistency is yet another logical virtue you may want to cultivate.

Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York

Link to comment
Share on other sites

* “But car accidents kill more people than guns, so why all the fuss?” Because cars are necessary to move around, while guns (especially semi-automatic weapons) are not a necessity, but a choice usually justified on the grounds of sportsmanship, hunting or self-defense — none of which require anything like the number and types of guns currently permitted by US law. By the way, if you don’t recognize this as a red herring (another fallacious argument) you really ought to take logic 101.

Incidentally, terrorist attacks in the United States too have killed far fewer people than cars, and yet we have spent billions (without counting two wars, of course) to make us more secure. While I don’t actually think that this was the best way of spending tax payers’ money if the goal really was to increase our security (better to spend it on police intelligence operations, for instance), it seems interesting to me that the same people who absolutely refuse to even consider mild gun regulations are often the same ones who are most vocal supporters of strong governmental action to protect us from very rare threats. Make up your mind, people, consistency is yet another logical virtue you may want to cultivate.

Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York

The problem with that statement being used towards what I stated is that I am focusing on increasing education on how to use these tools and this person is still focusing on an object being the problem.

Firearms are necessary for their own purposes. For those of us who like to eat clean, wild, hormone free game we use firearms to hunt. You can say I can use a bow or go buy my meat at a store but that's like me saying you don't need a car you can use a bicycle or take public transportation.

The quote you included also points out people who are against any form of regulation on firearms. That is a group of people I am clearly not a part of. I am against making firearms illegal or putting too much regulation on firearms but I do believe proper training and education on how to handle, store and use them is essential. Similar, but not exatly the same as the way you get properly trained to use other tools that also have the potential to be lethal.

We don't let people drive without licenses and in Canada you cannot own a firearm without a license. These licenses are obtained by taking a course that trains the individual how to properly handle, use and store the firearm. But we are talking about the United States, a country that I believe does not have enough regulation on giving firearms to educated persons. In Canada, I think our regulations are too strict. Somewhere inbetween would be best.

I guess what I am trying to get at (and what my original point was) is that there are always a large group of knee jerking cry babies who demand the removal of firearms from society and I disagree with that idea. Education and training is the way, not prohibition. I just hate seeing people blame the object and not the person and lack of training that caused the incident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...