Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8873 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-20-2018 6:07 AM
205 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 202 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arkangel Daniel
Post Volume:
Total: 842,416 Year: 17,239/29,783 Month: 1,227/1,956 Week: 224/506 Day: 29/131 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123456
7
8Next
Author Topic:   Take the state out of the schools!!!!!
nator
Member (Idle past 124 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 92 of 107 (28498)
01-06-2003 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by funkmasterfreaky
01-05-2003 7:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Sorry Schraf this seems like the cop out excuse to this problem. Personally I hate the idea of any sort of gun control. (this is a whole new thread)

So, do you think that anyone should have the right to own a rocket launcher? How about a machine gun?

quote:
I'd rather these were in the hands of civilians instead of under the command of governments who are motivated by big business.

Holy crap, you want it to be legal for the people like those in the Michigan Militia to own rocket launchers and machine guns?

Tanks. What about tanks? Should people be allowed to own tanks with rocket launchers? Should my neighbor be allowed to own an anti-aircraft gun because he fears that the MIB will take him away?

You are painting yourself into a silly scenario, funk.

quote:
Your scenario seems even sillier to me. How many citizens do you think can actually afford a rocket launcher and a tank? Your neighbour would have to be some rich to buy himself anti-aircraft guns.

He might be rich, or he might have great credit. He might also be a member of a Militia movement which is able to raise a lot of cash.

Please answer the question. Should it be legal for him to own an anti-aircraft gun?

quote:
Don't you think an educated mass should be able to teach their children that it is wrong to shoot others!?

Maybe, except that the consequences of failure to teach this lesson, combined with easy availability of guns results in tragedy.

Thet is the price you pay for being in love with guns.

quote:
So because of a few neglecting parents you will take away freedoms and any hope of self defence from the whole population?

I thought that you said that lots and lots of parents were neglecting their kids, and also that most teachers didn't care about their students and that the school system subjected a lot of kids to mental stress and abuse.

First this was a huge problem, but now it is a small problem of "a few"? Which is it?

The writers of our bill of rights could not have had any idea of the killing technology that would be developed in the future. Back when single-shot muskets and long rifles and bayonetts were the personal weapons of choice, and there was quite a lot of danger of our government becoming a lot like England's, it made sense for them to keep guns legal. I don't think that the writer's intent was for rocket launchers to be available to every citizen.

I would actually have no problem with every family who wanted to own a musket or a long rifle to have one.

quote:
You are right I did contradict myself there, because your idea of putting a control on guns so angers me, I wasn't thinking. Wasn't gun control one of Hitler's first courses of action in controlling the people. Yes the educations system and the family unit are flawed and disfunctional. It is a large problem not the problem of a few.

Oh, please, are you that desperate that you are resorting to "Hitler"?

Maybe you aught to tell the UK and Japan that banning guns is making them more at risk to becoming Fascist nations.

Oh, wait, they aren't Fascist military dictatorships, AND they have hardly any gun murders! Who woulda thunk it?

quote:
You can make all the legislation you want and you won't change one thing. Legislation does not solve problems, laws do not change peoples actions. It's already illegal to shoot people, alot of good that law does in stopping people from killing others.

Funky, can it be that you really see absolutely NO connection between the fact that someone can easily GET a gun with the subsequent high rate of gun deaths?

You are also forgetting higher rates of accidental shootings and suicide when guns are easy to get.

Here are some statistics:

http://medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

"In the U.S. for 1998, there were 30,708 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 17,424; Homicide 12,102; Accident 866; Undetermined 316. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, but has since declined steadily.(CDC, 2001) However, firearms injuries remain the second leading cause of injury-related death in the U.S., particularly among youth (Cherry et al, 1998).

The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with $13.4 billion in lost productivity. (Mock et al, 1994) The cost of the improper use of firearms in Canada was estimated at $6.6 billion per year. (Chapdelaine and Maurice, 1996)"

Thirty THOUSAND people dead, freaky.

"Child safety is an important issue. Firearms injury is the second leading cause of non-natural death in childhood and adolescence. (CDC, 2000) Accidental shooting deaths are most commonly associated with one or more children playing with a gun they found in the home. (Choi, et al, 1994) The person pulling the trigger is a friend, family member, or the victim. (Harruff, 1992)"

In one survey, 10% of families admitted to having unlocked and loaded firearms within easy reach of children (Patterson and Smith, 1987). Another study showed that two-thirds of accidental firearms injuries occured in the home, and one-third involved children under 15. 45% were self-inflicted, and 16% occurred when children were playing with guns. (Morrow and Hudson, 1986)

"The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. A of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). It would appear that, rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 01-05-2003 7:20 PM funkmasterfreaky has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by iconoclast2440, posted 02-20-2003 6:14 PM nator has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 124 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 93 of 107 (28500)
01-06-2003 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by funkmasterfreaky
01-02-2003 11:23 AM


quote:
I'd only teach one creation, however I would give parallels, here's what I believe, here is what others believe. This is why I believe what I do and why they believe what they do.

And that is exactly the problem.

Kids aren't stupid. They will take from this lesson that "Dad believes this, so that's what we should believe."

That is exactly the kind of biased teaching that homeschooling is prone to.

quote:
Children homeshcooled or public seem to have no difficulty casting off their parents beliefs. They seem to have a much more difficult time though, casting off the belief systems (or lack of) that they are bombarded with everyday. And they say Christians are paranoid, I would argue from this thread that it is critics that get edgy about this whole thing.

Um, you are pretty much wrong here, Freaky. The majority of kids pretty much believe what they were taught to believe as children, mostly by their parents.

Considering that all people, including the children, (in the US) are steeped in a Judeo-Christian culture, I would think that this would tend to enforce Christianity as the dominant religion

quote:
25 years in university doesn't qualify you teach. Some people have a heart and a temperment to teach and others do not. Again, knowledge is not the equivalent of wisdom.

And having a gift to teach doesn't mean you are going to teach the correct information if you don't have the knowledge or skills.

I might be a great teacher; inspiring, patient, and clear. However, if I teach my students that the moon landing was faked, or that women are inferior to men, or that evolution is false, I am not doing right by my students.

Anyway, I do care about what you teach your kids, if you were teaching them at home you MAY be depriving them (im not saying you would)of a better education, of a better chance in life, and you may be depriving them the chance to sample the beautiful philosophies of other faiths.

quote:
If I send them to public school I WILL be depriving them. At home I can see the strengths and weaknesses of my child clearly. I can encourage these strengths and work on these weaknesses, ultimately giving them a better chance in life.

Exposure to disparate ideas and intellectual challenge is most important to learning, it seems to me.

BTW, it's a rare parent who can see the strengths and weaknesses of their children clearly, I would say.

quote:
If my child were to want to know about other religions, faiths, or philosophies I would be glad to study these with them as well.

But only if they want to? And are you well-versed in and imparial enough to convey this information well? Are most parents?

quote:
Too many people lack the encouragement and instruction in those things that they are gifted towards. Too often music/arts (eg.) are considered unimportant or useless. Well to the person who is geared to these things there is nothing further from the truth.

Agreed. Why don't you start a campaign in your town to raise education taxes so they can hire great teachers to run the music deparment?

[This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 01-03-2003][/B][/QUOTE]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 01-02-2003 11:23 AM funkmasterfreaky has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Spofforth, posted 02-17-2003 2:17 AM nator has not yet responded

  
reefmonkey
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 107 (31968)
02-11-2003 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by funkmasterfreaky
12-13-2002 1:00 AM


My mom sucked at math and can't operate a computer to save her life. If my dad had died and she had been responsible for teaching me, I wouldn't even be able to balance my checkbook, but I also wouldn't be able to type this message, and therefore I wouldn't be able to be an intelligent dissenting voice to the crap that is creationism in public education, and that is what you would like, isn't it?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-13-2002 1:00 AM funkmasterfreaky has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 02-11-2003 5:32 PM reefmonkey has not yet responded

funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 107 (31975)
02-11-2003 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by reefmonkey
02-11-2003 5:09 PM


No it's not what I would like. You seem to be a fairly angry person. Did you read the rest of the thread before responding to message 7?

It's not some conspiracy against evolution. I'm not afraid of evolution. I just think that parents should put more of their own time into the education of their children.

For the sake of argument I took a solid stance for home education, however I know that this is not always a possiblilty.

------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by reefmonkey, posted 02-11-2003 5:09 PM reefmonkey has not yet responded

Spofforth
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 107 (32409)
02-17-2003 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by nator
01-06-2003 12:22 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd only teach one creation, however I would give parallels, here's what I believe, here is what others believe. This is why I believe what I do and why they believe what they do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________________
Quote schrafinator:

And that is exactly the problem.

Kids aren't stupid. They will take from this lesson that "Dad believes this, so that's what we should believe."

That is exactly the kind of biased teaching that homeschooling is prone to.
______________________________________________________________________

This is also the hypocrisy of the public education system, especially in the US. The view is that all students should be taught the same information, learn at the same rate of speed, and not have an independent thought.

The students of the public education system, bar a few localized events, are basically being indoctrinated into the cult of the standardized test. As an educator it has come to the point that if you want to be successful in your profession you must cover only state mandated topics, not cover information that might increase the thought of the individual, and God forbid the feelings of the students. If this were to happen there might be a mass that rose up and realized that they were basically being held back not only by their education system, but also by a welfare state that thrives on the ignorance of the masses to keep the power.

You are correct home schooling is not the answer because it just does not provide the opportunities that a proper public education does. But, the fact remains that at present our over regulated public institutions are falling immensely short of the claims they attempt to make about giving every student an opportunity. That having been said the fault also lies with the parent and the student and too few people have even looked in this direction.

There are many poor educators in our public school system, but there are also many who are very qualified and care very deeply for the children they educate. The fault of a student who receives a poor education, with all of the advantages that are available to them in the schools today, lies with the parents first. It would take a little time to research the teachers your student is to have courses with and determine whether your student would gain any benefits from that class. This sadly is often not the case. Students are placed blindly into a computer, they are placed into a class that is neither relevant nor well taught, the parent never knows and the student never asks for a change. Again going back to the fact that our education system is geared to develop a group of lemmings who fall in line and jump blindly over the cliff of the education that is being presented them.

My opinion: Ask a question, have a thought, research a topic, do not believe something to be true just because an educator tells you it is. This is not fostered in the public education system of today and until someone rises up, parents, and takes an interest in what is going on in the public school it never will be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by nator, posted 01-06-2003 12:22 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by John, posted 02-17-2003 8:27 AM Spofforth has not yet responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 107 (32422)
02-17-2003 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Spofforth
02-17-2003 2:17 AM


quote:
The students of the public education system, bar a few localized events, are basically being indoctrinated into the cult of the standardized test.

Yikes...

That just about sums up the US educational system. Very sad....

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Spofforth, posted 02-17-2003 2:17 AM Spofforth has not yet responded

iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 107 (32763)
02-20-2003 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by nator
01-06-2003 12:07 PM


quote:
http://medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

"In the U.S. for 1998, there were 30,708 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 17,424; Homicide 12,102; Accident 866; Undetermined 316. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, but has since declined steadily.(CDC, 2001) However, firearms injuries remain the second leading cause of injury-related death in the U.S., particularly among youth (Cherry et al, 1998).


One of the top causes of death in the US? Shraf did you by chance bother to explain where criminals purchase their fire arms? Would banning firearms prevent them from obtaining them? What are your theories?

What is the leading cause of injury related death? Maybe we should start by banning that first.

You are counting suicide by firearms in this dicussion? don't you think that a tad bit ridiculous? Can you prove these individuals wouldn't have committed suicide without the firearms?

quote:
The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with $13.4 billion in lost productivity. (Mock et al, 1994) The cost of the improper use of firearms in Canada was estimated at $6.6 billion per year. (Chapdelaine and Maurice, 1996)"<

Shraf i am having a terrible time following your logic. Are you suggesting we should ban firearms because some people own them and hurt themselves with them? If so why not ban cars, kives, baseball bats and all the other assorted possession which in some way could inflict damage on one's person. In contrast, what were the reported costs for other assorted injuries?

[/quote]Thirty THOUSAND people dead, freaky.[/quote]

can you prove banning firearms or imposing laws on them would vastly decrease the number of firearm related crimes? Of course banning firearms would prevent accidents with them. Banning cars would also prevent car related deaths. Perhaps we should think about that first.

quote:
"Child safety is an important issue. Firearms injury is the second leading cause of non-natural death in childhood and adolescence. (CDC, 2000) Accidental shooting deaths are most commonly associated with one or more children playing with a gun they found in the home. (Choi, et al, 1994) The person pulling the trigger is a friend, family member, or the victim. (Harruff, 1992)"

really? Some figures please. What is the leading cause?

[/quote]In one survey, 10% of families admitted to having unlocked and loaded firearms within easy reach of children (Patterson and Smith, 1987). Another study showed that two-thirds of accidental firearms injuries occured in the home, and one-third involved children under 15. 45% were self-inflicted, and 16% occurred when children were playing with guns. (Morrow and Hudson, 1986)[/quote]

So these figures are indicative of the populous as a whole? can you provide some information concerning these statistics?

quote:
"The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. A of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998).

Really? In three US cities? Which ones? When was this servey taken under what conditions? How does these small amounts of the populous reflect the populous as a whole?

quote:
Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). It would appear that, rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families."

Really? that should come to around 150 million or more. The figures don't add up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by nator, posted 01-06-2003 12:07 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by John, posted 02-20-2003 6:38 PM iconoclast2440 has responded
 Message 101 by nator, posted 02-20-2003 9:36 PM iconoclast2440 has responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 107 (32766)
02-20-2003 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by iconoclast2440
02-20-2003 6:14 PM


quote:
can you prove banning firearms or imposing laws on them would vastly decrease the number of firearm related crimes?

As I see it, the relevant statistic is the number of violent crimes per capita, not the number of gun related crimes. Assume a country, X, with a 25% homicide rate. Of that 25%, 20% are gun related. Take another country, Y, which also has a 25% homicide rate, of which only 5% is gun related. You can argue that Y's gun related crime is four times less than X's, but the comparison is a bit meaningless since the overall crime rates are the same.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by iconoclast2440, posted 02-20-2003 6:14 PM iconoclast2440 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by iconoclast2440, posted 02-20-2003 6:46 PM John has responded

iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 107 (32767)
02-20-2003 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by John
02-20-2003 6:38 PM


LOL john you are so right and many statistics mongers are guilty of exactly that.

Such statistics are purely "plutonic." Their relationship to the why's and how's are only reflected in a small portion of the populas opinions whom the conductors suppose represents the whole. This is of course only true if the sample actually provide their opinion. otherwise the numbers don't represent anything really. I take statistics with a grain of salt.

[This message has been edited by iconoclast2440, 02-20-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by John, posted 02-20-2003 6:38 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by John, posted 02-21-2003 8:21 AM iconoclast2440 has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 124 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 101 of 107 (32783)
02-20-2003 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by iconoclast2440
02-20-2003 6:14 PM


quote:
One of the top causes of death in the US? Shraf did you by chance bother to explain where criminals purchase their fire arms?

Why is that relevant?

quote:
Would banning firearms prevent them from obtaining them? What are your theories?

I do not advocate banning all firearms. I advocate banning the sale of militaty-type weapons and handguns.

Well, if one looks at countries such as the UK which bans handguns, one sees that criminals rarely get their hands on them.

quote:
What is the leading cause of injury related death? Maybe we should start by banning that first.

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of injury death in the US.

It is all that not comparable to gun deaths, however, because cars are not specifically manufactured to be used as weapons.

Also, homicide by gunshot is the leading cause of death in some places:

http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/US_factsheet.pdf.

"Gun-related deaths are the second leading cause of injury death in the U.S. In 1998, firearm-related deaths outnumbered motor vehicle-related deaths in 3 states and the District of Columbia."

quote:
You are counting suicide by firearms in this dicussion? don't you think that a tad bit ridiculous? Can you prove these individuals wouldn't have committed suicide without the firearms?

No, but if a suicidal person has access to a gun they are more likely to actually succeed in killing themselves than those who don't.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/suifacts.htm

"Nearly 3 of every 5 suicides in 1999 (57%) were committed with a firearm."

quote:
Shraf i am having a terrible time following your logic. Are you suggesting we should ban firearms because some people own them and hurt themselves with them?

No, I am suggesting that we ban military style weapons and handguns because they serve no other purpose than killing people a great deal of the time.

quote:
If so why not ban cars, kives, baseball bats and all the other assorted possession which in some way could inflict damage on one's person.

Baseball bats are used for baseball. Knives (some kinds of knives, like switchblades, are banned) are used for hunting or cooking. Cars are used for transportation.

Military guns and hand guns are used for killing people.

quote:
In contrast, what were the reported costs for other assorted injuries?

Don't know. I was researching the cost of gun injuries because there is no excuse for them occurring. There is no good reason to have such easy access to military weapons and ammunition unless you think it's OK for thousands and thousands of people die every year.

quote:
can you prove banning firearms or imposing laws on them would vastly decrease the number of firearm related crimes?

I think that controlling handguns and military weapons would greatly decrease the number of firearm related crimes judging by the low firearm-related crime rates in countries which have banned such weapons.

http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/US_factsheet.pdf.

"Among 36 high-income and upper-middle-income countries, the U.S. has the highest overall gun mortality rate. The rate of gun mortality in the U.S. is 8 times higher than in other high-income countries.

Of all firearm homicides in 2000 in which the type of gun was known, 88% were committed with handguns.

quote:
Of course banning firearms would prevent accidents with them. Banning cars would also prevent car related deaths. Perhaps we should think about that first.

This is a silly comparison. Cars are primarily used for transportation. Car accidents are a side effect of bad driving.

Military firearms and handguns are intended to be used to kill people.
Gun injuries and deaths are the intended purpose of having a gun.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by iconoclast2440, posted 02-20-2003 6:14 PM iconoclast2440 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by iconoclast2440, posted 02-20-2003 11:52 PM nator has responded

  
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 107 (32791)
02-20-2003 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by nator
02-20-2003 9:36 PM


quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the top causes of death in the US? Shraf did you by chance bother to explain where criminals purchase their fire arms?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is that relevant?


If they are buying them illegally legally banning them may not have an affect.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would banning firearms prevent them from obtaining them? What are your theories?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not advocate banning all firearms. I advocate banning the sale of militaty-type weapons and handguns.


Military type weapons? IE an assault rifle ? Do you know what the difference between a civilian model assault rifle and a standard rifle is?

quote:
Well, if one looks at countries such as the UK which bans handguns, one sees that criminals rarely get their hands on them.

Do they represent us? Do they have the same criminal aspect we have? Do their criminals have the same resources. This sounds as though its an argument of motive and capacity. Can you compare and contrast the cirminal element of the US with that of the UK?

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the leading cause of injury related death? Maybe we should start by banning that first.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of injury death in the US.


figured that much.

[quote]It is all that not comparable to gun deaths, however, because cars are not specifically manufactured to be used as weapons.

quote:
Also, homicide by gunshot is the leading cause of death in some places:

http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/US_factsheet.pdf.


really? while vehicular deaths remain the vast majority over all? BTW what does this have to do with banning military surplus weapons?

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are counting suicide by firearms in this dicussion? don't you think that a tad bit ridiculous? Can you prove these individuals wouldn't have committed suicide without the firearms?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, but if a suicidal person has access to a gun they are more likely to actually succeed in killing themselves than those who don't.


can you prove this?

quote:
"Nearly 3 of every 5 suicides in 1999 (57%) were committed with a firearm."

how does this prove the prior statement?

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shraf i am having a terrible time following your logic. Are you suggesting we should ban firearms because some people own them and hurt themselves with them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I am suggesting that we ban military style weapons and handguns because they serve no other purpose than killing people a great deal of the time.


vague definition. explain what military style weapons are or how your statistics represent their danger.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If so why not ban cars, kives, baseball bats and all the other assorted possession which in some way could inflict damage on one's person.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Baseball bats are used for baseball. Knives (some kinds of knives, like switchblades, are banned) are used for hunting or cooking. Cars are used for transportation.

Military guns and hand guns are used for killing people.


Really? Then why haven't all handgun owners killed some one if they have handguns? Other objects can be leathal. does playing the "it was meant to" game change that fact? No. Infact the vast majority of guns aren't ever used to kill anyone. Infact more cars end up killing people.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, what were the reported costs for other assorted injuries?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't know. I was researching the cost of gun injuries because there is no excuse for them occurring. There is no good reason to have such easy access to military weapons and ammunition unless you think it's OK for thousands and thousands of people die every year.


then these are rather meaningless figures. Why not ban cars so thousand won't die every year? LOL. If you study insurance companies you will realize many of them believe driving a red car over a black one might cause you to be more recklass (based purely on color). Perhaps we should ban the color car most accidents occur with (if this reasoning is infact valid)?

Banning a "military weapon" sounds just as absurd as banning all red cars.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
can you prove banning firearms or imposing laws on them would vastly decrease the number of firearm related crimes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that controlling handguns and military weapons would greatly decrease the number of firearm related crimes judging by the low firearm-related crime rates in countries which have banned such weapons.


You have done research i am assuming? Have you compared the criminal element of the us to that of other nations? If so demonstrate how such would occur here under restriction of firearms acts? Why is it gun crimes/damamges have go up? You must igknowledge such is directly proportional to the number of gun laws.

quote:
http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/US_factsheet.pdf.

"Among 36 high-income and upper-middle-income countries, the U.S. has the highest overall gun mortality rate. The rate of gun mortality in the U.S. is 8 times higher than in other high-income countries.


Again this doesn't account for the criminal element of the US or other issues concerned.

quote:
Of all firearm homicides in 2000 in which the type of gun was known, 88% were committed with handguns.

Legally or illegally owned?

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course banning firearms would prevent accidents with them. Banning cars would also prevent car related deaths. Perhaps we should think about that first.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a silly comparison. Cars are primarily used for transportation. Car accidents are a side effect of bad driving.

Military firearms and handguns are intended to be used to kill people.
Gun injuries and deaths are the intended purpose of having a gun.


Actually its not. You are playing a silly word game. You assert "weapons are meant to kill" which is ridiculous - you are claiming to know the intent of all owners. You deny the fact other supposed nonweapons are as lethal if used improperly (ie cars). Simply tagging supposed intent on something doesn't address the point of the topic. Futhermore an accident is an accident. Regardless of the supposed intent of the tool the alledged incident occured without the direct intent of hurting some one. Rendering the asserted purpose of the object irrelevant. If you ask me this is more evidence of personal irresponsibility then it is a gun problem. The same could be said for motorists.

[This message has been edited by iconoclast2440, 02-20-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by nator, posted 02-20-2003 9:36 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by nator, posted 02-22-2003 10:22 AM iconoclast2440 has not yet responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 107 (32803)
02-21-2003 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by iconoclast2440
02-20-2003 6:46 PM


quote:
LOL john you are so right and many statistics mongers are guilty of exactly that.

I used to have a book titled "How to Lie with Statistics." Very useful...

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by iconoclast2440, posted 02-20-2003 6:46 PM iconoclast2440 has not yet responded

David unfamous
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 107 (32806)
02-21-2003 9:13 AM


This may be of interest to some of you:

http://www.regulateguns.org/


nator
Member (Idle past 124 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 105 of 107 (32870)
02-22-2003 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by iconoclast2440
02-20-2003 11:52 PM


Are you really saying that deaths in motor vehicle crashes, which are nearly ALL accidents, are equivilant to deaths due to firearms, which are nearly ALL suicides and homicides?

This is a base rate thing. Cars are something that most of the adult population of the US use every day. The number of deaths associated with their use would, of course, be higher.

The fact that a much smaller percentage of the entire population of the US owns a firearm, yet firearm death is a leading cause of death and injury, means that they are much more dangerous than cars.

Here's your suicide stats:

http://www.regulateguns.org/fact_sheets/self_defense.asp

"Studies by public health professionals have repeatedly found that having a gun around for any reason increases the likelihood that a family member-as opposed to a criminal-will be inured or killed with a gun. A 1997 American Journal of Public Health study showed that family members that had a history of buying a handgun from a licensed dealer were twice as likely to die in a suicide or homicide as were persons similarly situated who had no such family history of gun purchase. This increased risk persisted for more than five years after the handgun was purchased.
An Archives of Internal Medicine study found that, with one or more guns in the home, the risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of homicide increased more than three times.

Other studies have looked specifically at the more narrow question of keeping guns in the home for self-defense. One, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, found that having a gun in the home made it nearly three times more likely that someone in the family will be killed. This risk is particularly high for women, who are more likely to be killed by a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative. An Archives of Internal Medicine study found that, with one or more guns in the home, the risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of homicide increased more than three times."

OK, let's assume that I am completely wrong and you are completely right.

What regulations do you think there should be on firearms? What do you think about the thousands and thousands of injuries and deaths that occur every year? What do you think of their easy availability of guns at gun shows where no background criminal check is necessary?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by iconoclast2440, posted 02-20-2003 11:52 PM iconoclast2440 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 02-22-2003 3:24 PM nator has not yet responded

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 107 (32877)
02-22-2003 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by nator
02-22-2003 10:22 AM


Here's some links you may find of interest. Seems the gun control laws in britian don't have the results intended (30%, jump in gun crimes in 2002). You may be interested in the other article about the idiocy of gun control. I have started some research about gun crimes and their relation to drugs and alchohol, will get back with that soon.

http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/Extremes/Toy%20Gun%20Crimes.htm

http://xtramsn.co.nz/news/0,,3772-2066843,00.html

------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by nator, posted 02-22-2003 10:22 AM nator has not yet responded

Prev123456
7
8Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018