Summations Only

Like you say, this father's child wasn't involved. In fact it was his daughter's friend's sister that was involved.I don't know why you think hearing from someone several stages removed from the event gives it more credence - he's just repeating the things other gun lobbyists say without any special insight.

quote:

---

There is also available at You Tube the testimony of a father whose child was killed at Sandy Hook, understandably grief-stricken, and denouncing guns as the problem which is the insane rhetoric of the moment.

---

But a father whose child was actually killed at Sandy Hook is denouncing guns but you're not interested in this as evidence in its own right, you're more concerned about how it may have got reported - making it look worse for the gun lobby than it is already.Somehow - and only you and god knows how - you think that these two events add to up to positive evidence for your position.You need to re-think that Faith; at the moment you're looking like a poster child for confirmation bias.

You claim that the father of someone whose child was not harmed in the shooting should be listened to (who happens to be against gun control) but the father who's child actually was killed (who happens to be for gun control) shouldn't?That is self evident bias.But it doesn't matter - we should listen to neither one. The decisions need to be taken on the facts, not the emotions of the moment and the facts show that guns cause deaths.

re: having a gun for self-defense is dangerous for you and your family:

If we accept for the moment that people have a right to own whatever guns they like - and several people here do not - I think the discussion is about whether a person's right to own guns needs regulating or not.

Well there are those that disagree and this has all been said many times here, but it's off-topic - there's another thread for how guns can be regulated. This one is about whether they should be.Your constitution is just a man made law, it's not the holy writ some seem to want it to be - it can be changed if there is a will to do it. The question here is what evidence would be enough to provoke a change.

Please stop, ICANT; this isn't helping you.

I don't think so. In the case of suicide there's some very convincing evidence that access to an easy method is causal. For example when the UK converted to Natural Gas the common suicide method of 'sticking you head in the oven' no longer worked because carbon monoxide wasn't in it and suicides reduced. Reducing paracetamol (acetaminophen, Tylenol) to 16 tablets per person and individually wrapping them reduced suicide deaths by 43% using them. And from the wiki Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

You're going to quibble about whether a suicide is a guilty or an innocent death? It's a substantive argument for gun control, that's all that matters.

Then you are putting aside real, empirical evidence to protect a personal belief. It a common problem cf. Faith.

..and, of course, in the UK, we don't call someone with a gun either and somehow we get by.

Just watched the last episode of Fargo, where the bad guy was, in fact, executed by a good guy. And I do mean executed, no self defence, pure execution. He then recieved a commendation. It spoiled an otherwise good series for me. In the film the good guy (gal) shot the evil one in the leg. Minimum force is what a civilised soicety requires; not total vengeance.

Prepared for what? From this distance it seems very strange - are you really expecting your government to attack you? How do you get to feel that way? We live in democracies now, governments can't even make punitive tax systems without being kicked out of office; who is the enemy that you're preparing for?

About as likely as a meteorite strike? The local government is likely to attack you? Why?If you guys called home invasions burglaries, it might lower the paranoia level somewhat. Invasions are something countries do to other countries ...

That would be kidnapping. What is the probability of being kidnapped from your home in Texas? So a federal government collapse is less likely than a meteorite strike (as you haven't ever had one but you have had a meteorite strike.) - not so stupid then? But you still 'prepare' for one. Perhaps you would be safer living entirely underground.

Because it's unnecessary? You appear to be spending a disproportionate amount of time, effort and concern preparing for very low/no risk events. It feels a little paranoid.It seems to me, as an outsider, that the presence of so many guns and their prevalence in US culture - TV, Films, news media, advertising, clubs and organisations, shops and fairs - increase feelings of insecurity and create a feedback loop.If it seems that everyone has a gun, you must have a gun yourself. And having the gun is a daily reminder of how insecure you are, so the feelings ratchet up to the point where you're building up stocks of food, digging out shelters and reading books on survival.Guns aren't making you safer, they're making you feel less secure.