209 publicly-reported accidental shootings by children so far in 2015

[shira]

LMAO!!! I bet you think this thread actually has made a difference and you're changing minds on gun control. When in fact all you've done is used a dishonest statement to build a strawman argument.

No, what I've done is attracted a hoard of self-deluding gun nuts that will do anything to avoid confronting the actual issue. The key for the right, as usual, is diversion, diversion, diversion. Anything but address the actual issue.

No gun can possibly be purchased solely for self defense, because PEOPLE CLEAN THEIR GUNS. Now there's a devastating counter-argument.

It cannot possibly be the case that keeping a gun for self-defense purposes is a horrible decision on cost-benefit grounds because PEOPLE ARE KILLED DRIVING CARS. Another devastating counter-argument.

Who can possibly counter such genius? The answer is no one. Because people who make such arguments are incapable of rational discourse.

Edit: And you yourself are entirely missing the point, too. This thread isn't about gun control. It's about people's decision to purchase a gun for self defense.

Gun purchaser: "I'm purchasing this gun to defend my family."

Me: "But there's a much greater chance that gun will kill a member of your family than defend it."

Gun purchaser: "Stop trying to take away my gun."​

 

[Genx87]

No, what I've done is attracted a hoard of self-deluding gun nuts that will do anything to avoid confronting the actual issue. The key for the right, as usual, is diversion, diversion, diversion. Anything but address the actual issue.


No gun can possibly be purchased solely for self defense, because PEOPLE CLEAN THEIR GUNS. Now there's a devastating counter-argument.

It cannot possibly be the case that keeping a gun for self-defense purposes is a horrible decision on cost-benefit grounds because PEOPLE ARE KILLED DRIVING CARS. Another devastating counter-argument.

Who can possibly counter such genius? The answer is no one. Because people who make such arguments are incapable of rational discourse.

Hahahahahahahaha This entire thread is a diversion from the beginning because the premise within the thread title is a lie which hasnt been changed yet. But wait, it gets better! You tried to defend a false position by using made up numbers.

In other words as you like to say. You are delusional.

 

[momeNt]

Let me prove to you how stupid your argument is:

It's not true that most people purchase door hinges solely to allow doors to swing open and swing closed. I can prove this because periodically people must oil and clean their door hinges.

Airplanes aren't purchased solely to transport people, because they have to be maintained, and pilots need to practice flying them.

The hamburger I bought last year at McDonald's wasn't purchased solely to feed me, because I had to take the hamburger out of its box, look at it, and position the hamburger right in front of my mouth.

Wow. I've learned so much from you today.

Some people like cleaning their guns, and besides you still can't argue with the target practice point.

The only item that really fits what you are going after might be a door lock. It literally has no other use. There is simply no such thing as a gun owner who owns guns solely for self defense. Don't just try harder next time, try better.

 

[shira]

Hahahahahahahaha This entire thread is a diversion from the beginning because the premise within the thread title is a lie which hasnt been changed yet. But wait, it gets better! You tried to defend a false position by using made up numbers.

In other words as you like to say. You are delusional.

See, you're deluding yourself, too.

209 (so far this year) children kill or injure someone in an accidental shooting. Ah, but you've hit on the fact that some of these shootings didn't actually take place "in the home." It if were, say, 156 of the 209 "in the home", then no problem? This is your counter-argument to the fact that guns kept in the home are a very, very bad risk?

if you can't see the self-delusion, I can't help you.

 

[shira]

Some people like cleaning their guns, and besides you still can't argue with the target practice point.

The only item that really fits what you are going after might be a door lock. It literally has no other use. There is simply no such thing as a gun owner who owns guns solely for self defense. Don't just try harder next time, try better.

I already defeated your argument.

 

[momeNt]

I already defeated your argument.

My argument was that there never has been a gun purchase whose purchaser bought the gun "solely for self defense".

You have not addressed that, only side stepped it and continued to assert the false premise.

What I think you should actually have done is expanded the argument, doubled down, and said there is actually NO reason to own a gun when a child could be injured by it. Target practice, hunting, livestock defense, self defense. Absolutely none. Because the enjoyment from target practice, the meat and ecological benefit of hunting, the replacement value of livestock, and the dubious self-defense statistics are absolutely never worth having an accidental discharge killing somebody in your family.

Instead you tried to single out this imaginary group of "sole self-defense" purchases of guns, which doesn't exist, and fail miserably at supporting it.

You can target practice digitally, because even air guns are unsafe, you can just buy meat from a grocery store, and the ecosystem can be maintained by forest preserve departments, livestock can be insured from varmint, and self-defense is a farce to begin with.

No reason at all to own a gun now. Their utility can be disregarded because the utility is not unique, it can be replaced. The same goes with dishwasher pods and swimming pools, people can just find that utility elsewhere in order to greater preserve life.

edit: Part of the reason you backed down from the target practice and hunting argument is that Dr Pizza came in here with a "Fuck you" and a moderator tag, he posts in these threads as a regular forum user, you needed to not back off and give him a "fuck you" right back. Children's lives are at stake here you can't go quietly with a simple fuck you.

 

[shira]

My argument was that there never has been a gun purchase whose purchaser bought the gun "solely for self defense".

You have not addressed that, only side stepped it and continued to assert the false premise.

What I think you should actually have done is expanded the argument, doubled down, and said there is actually NO reason to own a gun when a child could be injured by it. Target practice, hunting, livestock defense, self defense. Absolutely none. Because the enjoyment from target practice, the meat and ecological benefit of hunting, the replacement value of livestock, and the dubious self-defense statistics are absolutely never worth having an accidental discharge killing somebody in your family.

Instead you tried to single out this imaginary group of "sole self-defense" purchases of guns, which doesn't exist, and fail miserably at supporting it.

You can target practice digitally, because even air guns are unsafe, you can just buy meat from a grocery store, and the ecosystem can be maintained by forest preserve departments, livestock can be insured from varmint, and self-defense is a farce to begin with.

No reason at all to own a gun now. Their utility can be disregarded because the utility is not unique, it can be replaced. The same goes with dishwasher pods and swimming pools, people can just find that utility elsewhere in order to greater preserve life.

edit: Part of the reason you backed down from the target practice and hunting argument is that Dr Pizza came in here with a "Fuck you" and a moderator tag, he posts in these threads as a regular forum user, you needed to not back off and give him a "fuck you" right back. Children's lives are at stake here you can't go quietly with a simple fuck you.

Nonsense.

My best friend purchased his handgun solely for self defense. He took a training and course, and periodically practices shooting. And he cleans/maintains the gun. But those weren't the reasons he purchased his gun.

Did you purchase that gun for the purpose of taking a handgun training course? No.

Did you purchase that gun for the purpose of cleaning it? No.

Did you purchase that gun for the purpose of practice-shooting it? No.

Did you purchase that gun for the purpose of defending yourself with it? Yes.

So the only reason you purchased that gun was to defend yourself with it? Yes.

I, on the other hand, purchased my Feinwerkbau 800X Field Target air rifle for the SOLE PURPOSE of target-shooting it.

English can be so simple.

 

[Genx87]

See, you're deluding yourself, too.

209 (so far this year) children kill or injure someone in an accidental shooting. Ah, but you've hit on the fact that some of these shootings didn't actually take place "in the home." It if were, say, 156 of the 209 "in the home", then no problem? This is your counter-argument to the fact that guns kept in the home are a very, very bad risk?

if you can't see the self-delusion, I can't help you.

Well at least you changed that lie of a thread title after enough time and mockery.

 

[momeNt]

Nonsense.

My best friend purchased his handgun solely for self defense. He took a training and course, and periodically practices shooting. And he cleans/maintains the gun. But those weren't the reasons he purchased his gun.

Did you purchase that gun for the purpose of taking a handgun training course? No.

Did you purchase that gun for the purpose of cleaning it? No.

Did you purchase that gun for the purpose of practice-shooting it? No.

Did you purchase that gun for the purpose of defending yourself with it? Yes.

So the only reason you purchased that gun was to defend yourself with it? Yes.

English can be so simple.

Ask him if he enjoys owning the gun.

If he says no, because he has not derived any utility from his ownership because he has not had to defend his family with it. Then I'll believe your argument.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Me: "But there's a much greater chance that gun will kill a member of your family than defend it."

So why is it that I've been around guns all my life and I've owned guns for 40+ years yet no one in my family/extended family has ever been injured or had a mishap with a gun?

Could it be that I was taught proper gun safety as a child?

Or that my father, grandfather, and uncles kept their unloaded guns locked in a cabinet or safe with the ammunition locked in a separate cabinet drawer?

This would not be an issue if adults actually took responsibility of gun ownership/safety seriously and ensured that their guns were properly secured or had a trigger guard installed.

 

[shira]

Ask him if he enjoys owning the gun.

If he says no, because he has not derived any utility from his ownership because he has not had to defend his family with it. Then I'll believe your argument.

I know for sure that he doesn't. In fact, the gun kind of scares him. He lives by himself, so no "family" to defend.

When I was growing up, we had several cats. Indoor cats. So we had to have a box of kitty litter. And we had to clean up the cat-poop in the kitty litter every day. I guarantee that no one in our family enjoyed cleaning the litter box. Cleaning the litter box wasn't a reason we kept cats; cleaning kitty litter was a byproduct of, a necessary chore associated with, keeping cats.

I think you're confusing the byproducts of a decision with the reason(s) for the decision.

 

[shira]

So why is it that I've been around guns all my life and I've owned guns for 40+ years yet no one in my family/extended family has ever been injured or had a mishap with a gun?

Could it be that I was taught proper gun safety as a child?

Or that my father, grandfather, and uncles kept their unloaded guns locked in a cabinet or safe with the ammunition locked in a separate cabinet drawer?

This would not be an issue if adults actually took responsibility of gun ownership/safety seriously and ensured that their guns were properly secured or had a trigger guard installed.

I believe that you and your family follow safe gun practices. There are still risks, but for your family they're obviously much, much smaller than for most families that keep guns. And it may even be the case that the overall benefit outweighs the risks for families like yours.

Again, I want to stress that I'm referring only to "self-defense guns" here. I'm addressing the "self defense" justification for owning guns. I'm not arguing against guns owned for other purposes.

Unfortunately, the statistics we do have suggest that keeping a gun in the home for self defense is overall a bad decision. Your own family's mileage may vary; but for most gun-keeping families in the real world, guns aren't stored in biometrically-controlled gun-safes. Which means that in order to have easy and fast access to their guns (without which the self-defense value of the gun is hugely diminished), most families keep their guns and ammunition in a not-very-secure manner. That's pretty stupid, in my opinion.

It's so stupid, in fact, that these families would be much safer overall if they didn't keep guns at all.

 

[Chiropteran]

It's so stupid, in fact, that these families would be much safer overall if they didn't keep guns at all.

Not really true. The statistics you keep quoting are dishonest because they lump in suicides.

 

[momeNt]

I know for sure that he doesn't. In fact, the gun kind of scares him. He lives by himself, so no "family" to defend.

When I was growing up, we had several cats. Indoor cats. So we had to have a box of kitty litter. And we had to clean up the cat-poop in the kitty litter every day. I guarantee that no one in our family enjoyed cleaning the litter box. Cleaning the litter box wasn't a reason we kept cats; cleaning kitty litter was a byproduct of, a necessary chore associated with, keeping cats.

I think you're confusing the byproducts of a decision with the reason(s) for the decision.

Cleaning kitty litter and taking a gun to a range are different.

 

[shira]

Not really true. The statistics you keep quoting are dishonest because they lump in suicides.

Actually, if you look at my post on the statistics, you'll see that suicide numbers were cited separately. In fact, I specifically bolded the non-suicide statistics precisely so people like you couldn't make the claim you just did. Here' I'll repeat the quotation again:

A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide, suicide and accidental death.
• A gun in the home makes the likelihood of homicide three times higher, suicide three to five times
higher, and accidental death four times higher. For every time a gun in the home injures or kills in selfdefense,
there are 11 completed and attempted gun suicides, seven criminal assaults and homicides
with a gun, and four unintentional shooting deaths or injuries.

The odds are four-to-one against, even EXCLUDING suicides.

But why am I surprised that even with non-suicide statistics broken out separately, you still insist they're not? Is this what you mean by "honesty?"

 

[shira]

Cleaning kitty litter and taking a gun to a range are different.

Ah, so we've made at least a little progress here. You're not including "cleaning and maintenance" any more.

Let's see if we can make even more progress:

Can you acknowledge that there's a major difference in the "reason for purchasing the gun" between people who say they purchased the gun to engage in their hobby of target shooting and people who say they purchased the gun to defend their home?

 

[Genx87]

Air soft guns caused more injury to children than real guns. Time to ban them. Think of the children.

 

[shira]

Air soft guns caused more injury to children than real guns. Time to ban them. Think of the children.

So you're claiming I've advocated banning real guns in this thread?

Your post is a lie. You're a liar.

 

[BoberFett]

It's people like Shira who have caused me to truly despise Democrats.

 

[Genx87]

So you're claiming I've advocated banning real guns in this thread?

Your post is a lie. You're a liar.

lol

Your air-soft rifle doesnt bring any intrinsic value to the table. You have no need for it. Statistically speaking, bringing an airsoft gun into your home increases your chance of being injured by it. And they cause far more harm to children than real guns. I think they are a clear target for banning or severely curtailing their availability.

 

[shira]

It's people like Shira who have caused me to truly despise Democrats.

The truth is so difficult for you that you hate the truth bearers?

 

[shira]

[/b]

lol

Your air-soft rifle doesnt bring any intrinsic value to the table. You have no need for it. Statistically speaking, bringing an airsoft gun into your home increases your chance of being injured by it. And they cause far more harm to children than real guns. I think they are a clear target for banning or severely curtailing their availability.

You're claiming that I have an air-soft rifle?

Your post is a lie. You're a liar.

 

[momeNt]

Ah, so we've made at least a little progress here. You're not including "cleaning and maintenance" any more.

Let's see if we can make even more progress:

Can you acknowledge that there's a major difference in the "reason for purchasing the gun" between people who say they purchased the gun to engage in their hobby of target shooting and people who say they purchased the gun to defend their home?

No. Cleaning and maintenance is also important. Many people do like to clean their guns. Just because you can't say the same for cat litter doesn't mean that gun cleaning is automatically discounted. It's hard to respond to bad analogies but don't think that you've made any progress 🙁

Besides, how are you going to monitor who alleges the purchase was for target practice instead of self defense?

 

[shira]

No. Cleaning and maintenance is also important. Many people do like to clean their guns. Just because you can't say the same for cat litter doesn't mean that gun cleaning is automatically discounted. It's hard to respond to bad analogies but don't think that you've made any progress 🙁

Besides, how are you going to monitor who alleges the purchase was for target practice instead of self defense?

Oops. Backsliding.

So you're contention is that a PURPOSE of purchasing a self-defense gun is cleaning and maintenance of the gun?

 

[Genx87]

You're claiming that I have an air-soft rifle?

Your post is a lie. You're a liar.

Oh fine replace air soft with air gun. What are you 2 years old now?