Sorry, I did not mean to remove important parts of the article, only to condense.

But...and you'll excuse me...only fourth place? Whoop-dee-doo.
It is still in the category of the *primary* cause for unintentional home injury deaths to children. You'll also note that falls and choking are *fifth and sixth*, which were two of the main causes you noted in the article. Thus, it is arguable that firearm related injuries and deaths are *more* prevalent than falling and choking.

Again, speed reading is best not used for specifics during a discussion unless you're really good at it, ReddBeans. ^_^




I understand being too prideful to take state handouts, but to take many lives to avoid it...well, I don't mean to judge, but for me, at least, that's too far to go just for pride. Of course, I acknowledge that the lives of animals is hardly viewed the same way by everyone, so I don't find this surprising or mean...

And I certainly don't want to be swinging a bat at someone who could possibly have a gun and not connect the first time. If I am swinging in the dark it's more likely I will just piss them off and then they really will hurt me. No thanks, I will take my chances having a gun. The odds might not be perfect but at least odds are that I will have my gun when I need it.

NOT INCONTESTABLE FACT!!! mindless conjecture, at best. if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!

You act like the NRA is some formless, amorphous, mystery entity.. It's not. It's made up of men and women across the country who feel strongly enough to stand up for their God-given, inalienable right to the means to their own defense. Period.

Scotus rulings have determined that a policeman has no obligation under the law to insert himself in a position of peril to protect you. You and you alone are responsible for your own safety.

And again, I contest that trust people to "be responsible," to o "educate themselves," and to "do the right thing" is asking way too much.

that's it right there - people with malicious intent kill people

I don't believe that *you* believe that if there are less guns in homes, less guns in those homes will find their way into the hands of children. In your own words, if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Like I've said before, probably *less* outlaws will have guns. What's more, normal, law-abiding homes won't have guns, so the instance of children getting their hands on guns would be less.

Really, you just seem to be reinforcing my argument...

Speed reading must not be your forte either. I copied & pasted the article exactly as it was written. And provided the link so that anyone who may have doubted that could check for themselves.

You have your opinion on guns and I have mine. I'm sure that you can agree that we disagree. I respect your opinion, however I don't agree with it. I can respect that you don't agree with my opinion.

Yeah, freedom's a b1tch, ain't it?

I've read this kind of thread several times. I do notice a different of opinions with the city folks and people outside of the city.

I've read this kind of thread several times. I do notice a different of opinions with the city folks and people outside of the city.

YES, but seeing as this thread *started* with a child killing another child accidentally, that is *without malicious intent*, I would have guessed that you'd have understood my point. When it comes to guns, it's much easier for people *without malicious intent* to kill others *accidentally*.

this isn't about the city-mouse v country-mouse paradigm.

it's far deeper than that. the reason this country exists to begin with is a direct result of men and women who had the deeply seeded beliefs, stood up to a tyrranical government, fought for and won their independence.

We used to be a nation of riflemen. Now we're a nation of people who insist that someone be there to wipe our tushies..

Not reiforcing your arguement, disproving it.

Probably's and maybe's just don't cut it.

but let's follow your line of thought.

suppose you did get your way and we wake up tomorrow with a total, out and out gun ban..

what do you do about the millions and millions of previously legally owned firearms and the billions of round of ammunition people already have??

how do you enforce your new law?

keep in mind there are no registration rolls, so no way of knowing who has guns, what kind they have, how many, or where they live...

funny that no one is remarking upon the fact that the gun was STOLEN. It was an illegal gun in the first place. No law is gonna stop illegal possesion of guns

if the kids stole a skillsaw and chopped off his arm would we be banning skillsaws?

no law is gonna stop people with bad intent

funny that no one is remarking upon the fact that the gun was STOLEN. It was an illegal gun in the first place. No law is gonna stop illegal possesion of guns

if the kids stole a skillsaw and chopped off his arm would we be banning skillsaws?

no law is gonna stop people with bad intent

Being that the gun was stolen, I seriously doubt that keeping the gun safe and out of harms way was high on their priority list.

Maybe I'm just dumb or over-zealous. I still don't see how you disproved my logic.

You said, "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!" Okay, so if it's only the outlaws that have guns, that means that homes have fewer guns. This means Objective #1 is satisfied: Homes have fewer guns.

Thus, you have reinforced the first part of my argument.

The second part of my logic - the part about less outlaws having guns - was not really helped by your argument, I admit, but that's okay. That one is pretty self-evident: if guns are harder to get for criminals, then less criminals will get them.

Also, I speak in "probably"s and "maybe"s because one) I feel it's a little easier on the ear, and two) I don't KNOW for a fact what would happen. Even if I KNOW how things went in one situation, I often still don't KNOW how they'd go in another situation. Especially when things come to real life situations, there are often too many factors to see...

The issue of rounding up everyone's firearms is something to consider should a ban ever come into place. The way I'd do it is to ban the sale and trafficking of firearms and ammunition, thus the flow of new firearms into the market would be stemmed a bit. This means that sooner or later, all 100% law-abiding citizens would eventually be fresh out of ammo. No ammo means any guns still in homes pose zero threats to children.

As for the black market, well...guns would be more difficult to get for the poor, which is most criminals, especially drug dealers. Casual ownership of guns by poor teens in gangs would decrease a bit, thus lowering firearm fueled gang wars (knife, of course, would still happen, but they happen now anyway). Also, now you have more reason to book criminals who might also be dealing in other contraband.

Right, freedom to be dumb can get annoying. No one is saying that we should by law force people to be dumb though. Some of us are saying we should then *educate* people. Well, I say that this takes more resources than we have and that banning guns would solve more problems than just *educating*. Even educating may not even do such a good job at solving the problem, since it's small children, who tend to be clumsy and not mindful, who often are the victims of these accidents.

I mean, if the government cared so much about freedom, it'd be doing a lot of other, much more important stuff, differently. Freedom to bear firearms is not the issue for the government, even if it is the issue for you guys. It's the lobby groups and the tradition.