Guns don't kill people, people kill people

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 312
Topic's author
#1
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,308
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
Attempting a more serious conversation than some recent threads...

I have a question for every 2A advocate who has uttered these words;

A five year finds a gun that was stashed away, decides to walk over to the playgroundold and play with it. Three minutes later a child is shot to death.

Question: Was that child who was shot to death killed by a gun or killed by another child?
#2
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
God shot him. 
#3
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Is it a trans child or a real Christian child? ::rolleyes::
#4
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
The problem is it is a strawman for pro gun arguments. Nobody seriously makes it. 

In the above scenario the kids parents and or guardians are at fault for not locking up the gun, and usually when social services find guns in a house irresponsibly handled like this, they remove the child until the home is made safe. 

I am just glad to know that when I am 90 years old, I don't have to be completely defenseless like the elderly in some other countries. 
#5
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@ludofl3x
Chicks with dicks make me anxious because I think they're carrying. 
#6
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
Little known fact. Every year more people are killed by guns that were used in self defense scenarios than children who were playing with them. This at least balances out the cons of not allowing vs allowing people the ability to defend themselves. 
#7
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I am just glad to know that when I am 90 years old, I don't have to be completely defenseless like the elderly in some other countries. 

You got a point Wylted. These kids are young and fit, they can manage a bit of duck and cover in school. 
#8
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@badger
That's why I get an immediate erection at a chick with a dick. It confuses them and makes them think I am also possibly carrying
#9
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
You got a point Wylted. These kids are young and fit, they can manage a bit of duck and cover in school. 
I think the issue is not resolved with gun control. Think about this. Let's say I want to kill a bunch of school children but my access to guns is removed?

This makes any other action I take to achieve those aims, even more deadly. I could get a job in the kitchen and put arsenic in the food, killing 500 in one shot at meal time. It's better their damage is limited by easy access to guns. God forbid they have an opportunity to use their imagination, it would make them more deadly. 

In all seriousness though. The shooting in Uvalde really tugged at my heart strings and I started looking at ways to prevent future mass casualty events. I started digging into a bunch of sociology studies on what motivates these people and more importantly their mindset and how to alter it before they get to the point they consider doing these things at all.

There is a sickness that is somewhat unique to American culture, that I have isolated and I am developing plans to address it. If I can find time, I'll start a new thread and explain what is really at issue here, and what to do about it. 

The main thing isn't to get distracted and blame this on the boogey man of gun rights or the boogey man of mental illness which distracts both sides from actually making progress to address this issue.

So far I have only found one organization in the country that even accidentally uses my philosophy to attempt to reduce mass casualty events and that organization has very little reach so I have been in contact with them to try and help them extend that reach. 

Outlawing guns, even if politically viable (which it isn't so it's a waste of time to discuss) wouldn't do enough to really get at the root causes of these tragedies. Working on the American cowboy mentality of violence always being a righteous solution to problems, is. 

We glorify vigilantes here, call it justified when the hero goes around law to get revenge or justice and then we act surprised when a person gets revenge on a society that has wronged them by using violence.

There is more to it than that, but you get the gist.
#10
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
Hell, even our favorite cops in movies here, break the law to get justice and it makes us happy they are righteous and willing to break the law to handle the bad guys
#11
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Sorry, I think my tongue in cheek comment has apparently caused exactly what you were trying to avoid. Should've known better. 
#12
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
Come on, the chicks with dicks thing was funny... We can spare a few posts. 
#13
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
am just glad to know that when I am 90 years old, I don't have to be completely defenseless like the elderly in some other countries. 
You’ll probably end up using that gun to kill yourself.

Little known fact.
Probably because it’s bullshit 

#14
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
Attempting a more serious conversation than some recent threads...

I have a question for every 2A advocate who has uttered these words;

A five year finds a gun that was stashed away, decides to walk over to the playgroundold and play with it. Three minutes later a child is shot to death.

Question: Was that child who was shot to death killed by a gun or killed by another child?
In the event that the five year-old, who found the stashed gun, shot the other child, then of course, the child who was shot to death was killed by the other child using/playing with the gun. Is that really debatable? We can perhaps dispute who's to be held accountable, which isn't typically attributed to inanimate objects.

#15
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
So drugs and explosives shouldn’t be regulated either, right? They are just inanimate objects.
#16
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,438
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Double_R
Question: Was that child who was shot to death killed by a gun or killed by another child?
Killed by another child. Does this mean we should hold the child responsible? Obviously not, they don't know what they're doing. However, your argument doesn't showcase the importance of gun regulation, it showcases the importance of gun education.

If your 5yo finds your gun and manages to kill another kid with it, 1) You didn't stash your gun properly, 2) You probably left it loaded when not in use, and 3) You may have failed to parent your child properly so that they would know not to go near an object like that.

But none of these are things we can regulate. We can't control how people store their guns on their property, and we can't stop parents from failing to parent properly. Many house fires have been started by children playing with lighters. Do we need to ban lighters, or require some kind of special permit for lighters?
#17
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,133
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Mharman
This might be a good compromise.
#18
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,438
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
I wonder how effective they are, and if they can be mandated without enabling government tyranny. I’ll look into it later, but what are your thoughts on them?
#19
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 359
Posts: 10,773
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Mharman
Do we need to ban lighters, or require some kind of special permit for lighters?
Dont forget to ban knives.
#20
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,133
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
I wonder how effective they are, and if they can be mandated without enabling government tyranny. I’ll look into it later, but what are your thoughts on them?
The science isn't there yet, but it's potentially a better solution than what we currently do.
#21
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,438
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Interesting. How so?
#22
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,133
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Mharman
It's better than locks and safes since the lock is on the gun itself, but you can still use it quickly when needed (in theory)

Needs research for sure
#23
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,133
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Mharman
Actually, how fast does it take most people to unlock their phones? Couldn't you set up the same thing for a gun with a pin or something?

Like you would have to touch the handle a certain way with a combination of finger presses? I am just brainstorming
#24
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,438
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Topic's author
#25
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,308
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
In the event that the five year-old, who found the stashed gun, shot the other child, then of course, the child who was shot to death was killed by the other child using/playing with the gun. Is that really debatable? We can perhaps dispute who's to be held accountable, which isn't typically attributed to inanimate objects.
No one is claiming the gun should be held accountable.

The idea being pushed by this talking point is that the presence of guns is irrelevant, if someone ends up dead only the people involved should be factored into the equation. The purpose of the scenario I described is to point out how plainly obvious it is that the gun is absolutely pay of the equation.

In this scenario, without the gun being in the picture, no one ends up dead. Do you deny this? Would you argue that the child shot to death would have ended up dead another way regardless?
Topic's author
#26
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,308
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mharman
However, your argument doesn't showcase the importance of gun regulation, it showcases the importance of gun education.
It showcases that the idea that guns do not cause deaths is nonsense.

But none of these are things we can regulate. We can't control how people store their guns on their property, and we can't stop parents from failing to parent properly.
The point of the hypothetical was to refute a concept.

If we really want to get specific on this one hypothetical, we could require a gun safety class to be completed before allowing someone to purchase a firearm, as just one example. Would that stop this from ever happening? No, but would almost certainly reduce the number of these types of incidents.

Many house fires have been started by children playing with lighters. Do we need to ban lighters, or require some kind of special permit for lighters?
Guns are the number one cause of death in the US for children. Where exactly is being burned to death on that list?

#27
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,438
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Double_R
It showcases that the idea that guns do not cause deaths is nonsense.
It doesn't. Every gun death has a human element to it. Even in your hypothetical, there needed to be a parent who stored the gun improperly, and child who likely wasn't parented correctly.

The point of the hypothetical was to refute a concept.
I understand that, but your hypothetical fails to do so. If you want, you can have a hypothetical where the gun breaks itself out of the box, walks itself over to a human, and shoots them. That would be an example of a gun killing someone.

If we really want to get specific on this one hypothetical, we could require a gun safety class to be completed before allowing someone to purchase a firearm, as just one example. Would that stop this from ever happening? No, but would almost certainly reduce the number of these types of incidents.
That is a good argument in favor of requiring those courses. I will be on board with this if the process is quick enough for someone who urgently needs a gun.

Guns are the number one cause of death in three US for children. Where exactly is being burned to death on that list?
Not very high up, but that is irrelevant. Surely you could save some lives by passing lighter control, no?

Alternatively, we could have entire campaigns telling parents to keep their kids away from lighters, and kids to stay away from lighters. Couple that with improvements in child safety mechanisms, and we could have a decrease in the rate of those types of incidents.

I argue that proper gun education and the rise of smart guns (as I've begun to research- it looks promising) could contribute to a decline in adolescent gun death rates.

Will it decline overall? I can't say, since there are many other factors than just the guns themselves that contribute to adolescent gun deaths. Even then, tackling those other factors would be far more effective than sweeping gun control, just like tackling the root causes of poor fire safety (with education and innovation) would be more effective than lighter control. Point is, there's more to object-related deaths than the object itself, especially in this case, where the presence of a gun is not the root cause.
#28
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
I think me and you both have the same problem. We pay specific scenarios looking for a response to that scenario and instead people try to argue against our assumed positions. I think the first post I made responding with you stated on topic because I called it, basically a type of strawman position, which is why you won't see a 2nd amendment debate where the argument comes up. 

Guns don't kill people is merely a sometimes used response when it seems the right to own guns is being challenged in some cases, where a specific murderer is getting off the hook in the is public eye as the actions he had taken, take a back seat to talk about gun control.
#29
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Well, guns by themselves, left alone, unhandled by human hands, jsut so NOT kill people. 

People kill people. 

And as GP (or another) pointed out, it’s much more likely deficient to infiltrate the organization where they are weakest and kill larger numbers. The school cafeteria was a prime example. Poison the food and BAM!! Hundreds dead. 

Take away the tool of convenience, a psychopath will find the next tool of convenience to do their heinous evil act. 

No one will stop them. Unless they have a gun abs get into the situation as the officers in TN did. They are the perfect example. The uvalde officers are the examine of failure. 
#30
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@TWS1405_2
And as GP (or another) pointed out, it’s much more likely deficient to infiltrate the organization where they are weakest and kill larger numbers. The school cafeteria was a prime example. Poison the food and BAM!! Hundreds dead
That was me, who said it. I did not change my pro gun position just by showing empathytowards doubelr