Where in my original post did I make that analogy? You were the one who drew that connection.
But I still don't understand, I can just have my kids avoid diseases just like they can guns right? Because if I tell them to avoid it there is zero chance they will ever be exposed to diseases or guns, so there's no need for vaccines or gun safety courses.
But seriously, I will never understand exposing children to (1)vaccines like this, (2)medical experts or not. (3)Preventative care is not for children.
1. Guns replaced with vaccine
2. Supervision replaced with medical experts
3. Weapons with Preventative care
However in the post I am now replying to, you say the guns are the disease and the Safety courses are a vaccine. That makes a bit more sense than your original post.
Possess or handle? It makes it sound like they would be able to keep/have their name associated with a handgun if the parent signs off on it (which to me is kind of nuts). I learned to shoot handguns with a .22 revolver, but that gun was certainly never mine, and it was with a qualified adult standing two feet away watching every move.
It may come as shocking news, but one of the best ways to teach a kid about safe gun handling and the inherent danger of guns is to teach them how to shoot. Even in my incredibly liberal Southern Oregon town, a lot of my friends grew up learning how to shoot, and those people were always very vigilant about safe gun handling in my experience. But let me tell you a little story. When I was much younger, my dad gave me a small single-shot .410 shotgun that I would use when we would go bird hunting. One day I had it in my room for some reason or another (it was probably being cleaned), and a friend of mine came over whose parents owned guns but never really taught him anything about them. A combination of curiosity, lack of gun safety knowledge, and overall dumbassery compelled him to pick up the shotgun, cock the hammer, point it right at my face, and pull the trigger. Obviously it was unloaded because I'm still here, but that's the kind of dumbass shit kids (or even adults) do when they're not taught proper gun safety and suddenly find themselves around guns.
I took an extensive youth gun safety education course when I was 13 by the way, and the final day focuses on actual shooting. It's generally accepted that you can't teach proper gun safety without some kind of hands-on training.
It's odd to see abstinence-only logic presented as a viable solution for gun education by people that would almost certainly oppose abstinence-only logic in any other context. "Don't do that" isn't an effective educational method.
Well I learned to hunt with my father this way, I learned gun safety and responsibility. Got my hunting license at 16 after going on hunts with my father. Have been a responsible gun owner since. I have three boys of my own , that my guns are locked up under safe and key, but I discuss the responsibilities of handling a firearm, teaching them that guns are only meant for one thing and that is to kill and they won't touch them till I deem them responsible enough to treat it with respect. I'm sorry but this is a very common thing amongst families here in the south and "Gun Nut" is not how most of these people are.
No I am not the one who made that connection. You made that analogy/equation.
Here are the two original posts
But seriously, I will never understand exposing kids to (1)guns like this, (2)supervision or not.(3) Weapons are not for children.
But seriously, I will never understand exposing children to (1)vaccines like this, (2)medical experts or not. (3)Preventative care is not for children.
1. Guns replaced with vaccine
2. Supervision replaced with medical experts
3. Weapons with Preventative care
However in the post I am now replying to, you say the guns are the disease and the Safety courses are a vaccine. That makes a bit more sense than your original post.
Again, you are comparing three words from a previous post with three words from my satirical post. I count a whole lot more words (read: context) than that.
It could have also been:
But seriously, I will never understand exposing children to sex like this, safe or not. Sex is not for children.
The point of the copy/paste was to show the flaw in that logic, but I'm sure you see that now.
It's odd to see abstinence-only logic presented as a viable solution for gun education by people that would almost certainly oppose abstinence-only logic in any other context. "Don't do that" isn't an effective educational method.
The whole gun situation in the US is a mess. No matter how many sad incidents they'll put the blame on everything but gun control. But ofcource it's a business and after every major shooting there's major sales boost for gun shops.
Again, you are comparing three words from a previous post with three words from my satirical post. I count a whole lot more words (read: context) than that.
It could have also been:
But seriously, I will never understand exposing children to sex like this, safe or not. Sex is not for children.
The point of the copy/paste was to show the flaw in that logic, but I'm sure you see that now.
Your satire doesn't show the flaw at all because it equates a vaccine (solution) with a gun (problem). It would have worked if the post you satired had said that gun safety (solution) was equated with a vaccin.
I think your point was, guns are a reality so education on them is a good thing.
Geez, haven't any of you been a Boy Scout? We shot rifles and guns all the time. I have a merit badge for it. As long as adult supervision is at place, at a range, I don't see what the big deal is.
Your satire doesn't show the flaw at all because it equates a vaccine (solution) with a gun (problem). It would have worked if the post you satired had said that gun safety (solution) was equated with a vaccin.
I think your point was, guns are a reality so education on them is a good thing.
What it equates is exposure, and exposure to guns in the context of gun safety is a solution, and analogous to a vaccine (if you consider guns to be a disease). Your flaw is that by focusing on just the word changes you fail to see that.
But, yes, that is my point. Guns, sex, diseases, etc. They are all a reality in our society, and just choosing to avoid them doesn't change the fact that you will be exposed to them at one point or another. It is much better for children to be educated (i.e. vaccinated) by means of controlled exposure than it is to act like it doesn't exist and hope for the best. This law will now allow parents to do just that (legally, as if they weren't already).
There's really no point in banning kids from having handguns if they can possess long guns under parental supervision. I would rather see a ban on underaged possession.
Okay, how about operating heavy machinery? Having sex? Voting? Making medical decisions?
I don't think people in this country truly acknowledge and respect the destructive power of firearms if they think preteens should be operating them. The power to take another's life (by firing deadly projectiles) should be more restricted than the power to have a voice in society, or the power over ones own life and health. That's common sense. That's a no brainer. Even if there are millions of children using firearms, it doesn't make sense.
Well I learned to hunt with my father this way, I learned gun safety and responsibility. Got my hunting license at 16 after going on hunts with my father. Have been a responsible gun owner since. I have three boys of my own , that my guns are locked up under safe and key, but I discuss the responsibilities of handling a firearm, teaching them that guns are only meant for one thing and that is to kill and they won't touch them till I deem them responsible enough to treat it with respect. I'm sorry but this is a very common thing amongst families here in the south and "Gun Nut" is not how most of these people are.
There seems to be a discrepancy between the title and the content. The Iowa law apparently allows children under 14 to "handle" rifles and long guns with parental supervision, so for things like target shooting or some such, and this law will extend that to handguns as well.
It's not saying kids are going to start carrying guns everywhere...
Possess or handle? It makes it sound like they would be able to keep/have their name associated with a handgun if the parent signs off on it (which to me is kind of nuts). I learned to shoot handguns with a .22 revolver, but that gun was certainly never mine, and it was with a qualified adult standing two feet away watching every move.
Handle. Basically, if a dad wants to take his kid to the range or teach him to shoot a handgun on their property (assuming there is ample space), he will be legally allowed to, just like with rifles and shotguns. GAF is blowing this out of proportion, making it sound like the law says kids are allowed to carry with parent's permission.
The whole gun situation in the US is a mess. No matter how many sad incidents they'll put the blame on everything but gun control. But ofcource it's a business and after every major shooting there's major sales boost for gun shops.
I mean, let's be real kids going out target shooting with mom/dad once in a while isn't where most of the gun crime comes from.
With that said we can look at situations like Sandy Hook where mom knew her son wasn't right in the head and indulged him with firearms and tried to immerse him in "gun culture" and the result is a bunch of dead children.
A middle ground needs to be where the culture shifts and we accept some parents will allow their children to shoot but with the responsibility on the parent to always be cognizant of their kids mental state.
I can only speak for myself but giving 8, 10, 12, 15 year old me a gun when I was that age would have been a horrific idea. Not cause I had issue but I just wasn't mature enough. I think it's fair for society to think "Hey, maybe allowing young ones access even if supervised might not be the best idea".
Kids won't mind shooting BB rifles until they're 17/18. You can teach them firearm safety on that platform.
The real problem in this story is actually you having a shotgun lying around in your room.
Kids shouldn't have guns period. Gun courses are just to cure the side-effects, not the disease.
Someone here posted a clear graph that shows gun related deaths in the US are fucking out of this world... but it just gets ignored.
Showing kids how to shoot guns might indeed prevent some gun accidents. You know what would prevent more gun accidents? Not having every-fucking-one owning 13 guns.
Those deaths matter but they're symptoms of even broader problems.
Drug dealers will continue to kill each other so long as there is an illegal drug market to fight for and depressed people without reasonably convenient and affordable medical treatment will continue to kill themselves.
Using those statistics as a supplement for insinuating that the average person is perpetually in danger of being shot is dishonest at best.
Someone who is going to commit suicide is going to commit suicide. Using a gun is just a quick and painless way, so it is the most prevalent. The ~20,000 suicides by gun really skews the data.
Drug related gun violence is still gun violence, I agree. Unfortunately most of these happen by people who do not have the firearm legally. To be blunt, most of it happens in the hood and the perpetrators as well as victims are often gangbangers. Among actual legal gun owners, minus the suicides, I'd wager the rate of gun violence is fairly close to the global average.
In fact, though gun purchases have skyrocketed, gun violence has gone down significantly in the last 20 years, despite the sensationalism in the media.
Iowa City is a bastion of sanity, along with some of the other larger cities. Outside of them, it's basically Nebraska on steroids. (My home state.)
This bill is lunacy, and just as importantly, so is the existing law letting kids handle other kinds of guns. Bringing hand guns up to par with a stupid bill does not make it okay. I had to triple read that it was UNDER age 14, rather than over. Totally batshit insane.
Yeah, both states are ... INTERESTING outside the cities, but holy shit Iowa ramps up like whoa. Noticed it when I did a road trip to Des Moines recently. Des Moines feels relatively sane and progressive, but holy shit between it you think people are ready to set everything on fire.
Meh, it isn't that bad honestly. It just allows kids to shoot a firearm (like on the range or if you go hunting) as long as a legal guardian is there. It doesn't allow them to own any firearms and the bill even says that a minor owning a firearm is a misdemeanor. Don't think its that big of a deal.
Okay, how about operating heavy machinery? Having sex? Voting? Making medical decisions?
I don't think people in this country truly acknowledge and respect the destructive power of firearms if they think preteens should be operating them. The power to take another's life (by firing deadly projectiles) should be more restricted than the power to have a voice in society, or the power over ones own life and health. That's common sense. That's a no brainer. Even if there are millions of children using firearms, it doesn't make sense.
Well, leaving out the sex, the other three are not recreational activities. You might not like it, but shooting is a sport that is enjoyed by millions. It is a family activity. If you saw some of the families having quality time at matches, with the kids following the incredibly stringent safety rules and having a great time, I think you would see it differently.
Shao Kahn is right. All of these "statistics" from anti-gun advocacy studies that people throw around to try to prove that you are safer without a gun than with one are nonsense.
They include extreme cases that don't extrapolate to the average American who wants to own a gun for protection, sport, or defense of liberty. Including mentally ill, irrational people (suicides) and amoral people (drug gangs) in the statistics is flawed statistical technique. (But the anti-gunners do it on purpose I know) Those so-called studies also usually only include defensive uses of guns that involve killings, leaving out the tremendous number of cases where brandishing a gun or wounding a person prevents a crime.
They do matter. We should try to save people from suicide. We should fight against drug crime and try to save people. But not by denying everyone else their human rights.
The vast majority of people, who are mentally stable and not participants in crime, are safer as gun owners than not. Both as individuals and as a collective group denying the state a monopoly on deadly force.
You're not doing a good job protecting your citizens if gun owners buy them and carry them outside for protection. Why not have safe streets without the need of guns?
I feel like not only did the experience teach me a ton of lessons, but the time and memories spent with my Father will stay with me for my lifetime and made us all the closer as well.
Please show me the evidence that this is true in America. Because what I found was the opposite. States with more gun control had lower overall suicide rates, for both men and women. The conclusions the authors wrote were telling-- "Results support the hypothesis that state restrictions on firearms have the potential to reduce the suicide rate. Findings do not support a hypothesis that greater firearm restrictions are associated with the substitution of alternative methods of suicide."
So again, I ask you, please show me the empirical evidence that suggests restricting gun access does diddily squat to the overall suicide rate.
Shao Kahn is right. All of these "statistics" from anti-gun advocacy studies that people throw around to try to prove that you are safer without a gun than with one are nonsense.
Those so-called studies also usually only include defensive uses of guns that involve killings, leaving out the tremendous number of cases where brandishing a gun or wounding a person prevents a crime.
Accidental gun shootings also leave out the many cases which are treated by the ER but not reported to authorities. Emergency room doctors are under no obligation to report accidental gun shootings to anyone outside the hospital. This is evident when there are ~26,000 ER visits annually for accidental gun shootings and yet only ~2,000 get reported.
Regarding defensive uses of guns, you're welcome to look at the methodology to this reporting website based on public sources and know that they do count wounding and yet, reported accidental shootings still outnumber those defensive incidents. How sad is that? What about the "tremendous number of cases where brandishing a gun...prevents a crime"? How do you know it's a tremendous number? Do you have an actual empirical source for that? Or are you pulling that quantity out of your ass? Because I can counter with an out-of-my-ass number of my own and argue that there are "tremendous number of cases where non-defensive brandishing a gun" is used to threaten someone, that also go unreported.
You have no empirical evidence to suggest that. All you have are anecdotes. You can only apply that statement to yourself, not to society.
And yet you blissfully ignore epidemiological evidence after evidence (Fig. 1) that associates firearm ownership with firearm-related death.
You can argue until you're blue in the face that "association" is not "causation" all you want. As if anyone could design a randomized-controlled trial to answer that question. You'd make a tobacco lawyer proud.
Please show me the evidence that this is true in America. Because what I found was the opposite. States with more gun control had lower overall suicide rates, for both men and women. The conclusions the authors wrote were telling-- "Results support the hypothesis that state restrictions on firearms have the potential to reduce the suicide rate. Findings do not support a hypothesis that greater firearm restrictions are associated with the substitution of alternative methods of suicide."
So again, I ask you, please show me the empirical evidence that suggests restricting gun access does diddily squat to the overall suicide rate.
Accidental gun shootings also leave out the many cases which are treated by the ER but not reported to authorities. Emergency room doctors are under no obligation to report accidental gun shootings to anyone outside the hospital. This is evident when there are ~26,000 ER visits annually for accidental gun shootings and yet only ~2,000 get reported.
Regarding defensive uses of guns, you're welcome to look at the methodology to this reporting website based on public sources and know that they do count wounding and yet, reported accidental shootings still outnumber those defensive incidents. How sad is that? What about the "tremendous number of cases where brandishing a gun...prevents a crime"? How do you know it's a tremendous number? Do you have an actual empirical source for that? Or are you pulling that quantity out of your ass? Because I can counter with an out-of-my-ass number of my own and argue that there are "tremendous number of cases where non-defensive brandishing a gun" is used to threaten someone, that also go unreported.
You have no empirical evidence to suggest that. All you have are anecdotes. You can only apply that statement to yourself, not to society.
And yet you blissfully ignore epidemiological evidence after evidence (Fig. 1) that associates firearm ownership with firearm-related death.
You can argue until you're blue in the face that "association" is not "causation" all you want. As if anyone could design a randomized-controlled trial to answer that question. You'd make a tobacco lawyer proud.
You are just presenting the same flawed advocacy-study "statistics" again. You give no justification for why the inclusion of outlier cases in statistics that are supposed to be representative of individuals who do not have the traits that the outliers do. It's meaningless.
Why don't they do a "study" where they leave out suicides and anyone with a previous criminal conviction? You know why...because it would not provide the hysterical talking point that those who oppose personal liberty are looking for.
You are just presenting the same flawed advocacy-study "statistics" again. You give no justification for why the inclusion of outlier cases in statistics that are supposed to be representative of individuals who do not have the traits that the outliers do. It's meaningless.
Why don't they do a "study" where they leave out suicides and anyone with a previous criminal conviction? You know why...because it would not provide the hysterical talking point that those who oppose personal liberty are looking for.
Your arguments indicate that you have no understanding of epidemiology. Not sure how observations can be considered outliers when the sampling is literally "all comers" for the entire year. You may be using the term "outlier" incorrectly. I'm not sure how you can accuse multiple, independent, groups of professional statisticians of fraud when you yourself do not understand the basics to point out these alleged mistakes.
The study where Fig. 1 comes from in my previous post, did indeed separate out suicides and still found a statistically significant association. But you didn't pick up on that. Regarding prior criminal convictions, I'm not sure how that is associated with increased rates of accidental gunshot injuries, for example, of which I've argued that the rate is far higher than rates for defensive use. Accidental gunshot injuries remain a public health issue as well. You have no evidence to suggest that rates of defensive incidents are higher than rates of accidental shootings. I have presented evidence that suggests better gun control is associated with fewer deaths from gunshots, as well as fewer deaths from suicide overall. You have presented nothing to counter that.
I'm sure researchers would be happy to separately study gunowners who don't commit suicide and do not have a previous criminal conviction. But that would require mandatory background checks for every gun sale, as well as allowing tracking of every gunowner in a searchable database that links gunowners with criminal history. You know, a gunowner database. The term you're looking for is, "cohort study." Too bad gunowners appear to be shy in volunteering that information, since, you know, we need informed consent to perform such a study.
I'm still waiting for you to present your peer-reviewed evidence to back up your biases. Specifically, back up your statement "The vast majority of people, who are mentally stable and not participants in crime, are safer as gun owners than not." The burden of proof is on you to find that evidence, based on the strengths and quantity of research published thus far. Except I expect that you only have anecdotes to back up your claims.
The problem is not you being a responsibl teenager who can handle guns, the problem is a culture where it is normal for a young teenager to have a shotgun in his room. The fact you sigh says enough.
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4002396/gun%20ownership%20countries.jpg)
