Five-year-old boy accidentally shoots, kills sister

So unless the right wing gun nuts get a 100% guarantee no gun laws are any good???Most responsible gun owners said that these knew laws won't pertain to them and most of them say they don't need or want most of the banned ones people are talking about, then I ask so why fight them? If any of these new laws save one child or stop just one idiot .....then they are worth it. This doesn't have a damn thing to do with the 2A and right wing gun nuts know it, look the largest donations to the NRA are gun makers this is all about selling more guns. These laws are not 100% , everyone knows it and nobody has said they would be but if they stop just one death then they are worth it.

How would you quantify the successful implementation of the law? There's no way we could tell that someone stupid DIDN'T get a firearm. It's all about limiting firearms, nothing more. Thin end of the wedge. Same thing happened in Australia and the UK.

So unless the right wing gun nuts get a 100% guarantee no gun laws are any good???Most responsible gun owners said that these knew laws won't pertain to them and most of them say they don't need or want most of the banned ones people are talking about, then I ask so why fight them? If any of these new laws save one child or stop just one idiot .....then they are worth it. This doesn't have a damn thing to do with the 2A and right wing gun nuts know it, look the largest donations to the NRA are gun makers this is all about selling more guns. These laws are not 100% , everyone knows it and nobody has said they would be but if they stop just one death then they are worth it.

you really are presenting a whole slew of fallacious arguments wrapped up into a jumble.

1st) no one on either side is arguing for no gun laws ever, or more specifically for every 1 that argues that, there is a corresponding nut that says no guns ever no way no how. That part of the debate is simply irrational.

2nd) just because a law doesn't pertain to you specifically doesn't make fighting it a wrong choice. In fact, there are many rational reasons why someone who won't be affected by a new law might still consider the law itself flawed

3rd) ah, the old save one child argument. Again, will you ban cars, pools, super sugary sodas, bow and arrows, hunting knives, slingshots, darts and dartboards. You make laws that protect, you don't make laws to bubble wrap.

4th) you might not think it has to do with 2nd Amendment issues, but seeing as how it specifically states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", I think that it has to always be looked at to some degree through that lens.

5th) after setting up a strawman of no laws, you turn around and use the reverse as proof, saying they aren't 100%.

6th) Lots of things "stop one death", that is not a sound basis for writing laws affecting 350million people.

Every one of those points is not even about arguing the merits of your position or what you presume mine to be, it's simply showing that for debate, and rational discussion, they are not very good starting points.

Buddy of mine is gonna call DMV today because he has an old ass S10 pick up truck and wants to mount a machine gun aka african rebel militia style. Not those nice middle eastern militia toyotas, but those real raggdy mid 70's datsun/mad max style sh*t. Is it illegal? for some reason i think its ok and told him to go for it.

That'll clear rush hour traffic.

you really are presenting a whole slew of fallacious arguments wrapped up into a jumble.

1st) no one on either side is arguing for no gun laws ever, or more specifically for every 1 that argues that, there is a corresponding nut that says no guns ever no way no how. That part of the debate is simply irrational.

2nd) just because a law doesn't pertain to you specifically doesn't make fighting it a wrong choice. In fact, there are many rational reasons why someone who won't be affected by a new law might still consider the law itself flawed

3rd) ah, the old save one child argument. Again, will you ban cars, pools, super sugary sodas, bow and arrows, hunting knives, slingshots, darts and dartboards. You make laws that protect, you don't make laws to bubble wrap.

4th) you might not think it has to do with 2nd Amendment issues, but seeing as how it specifically states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", I think that it has to always be looked at to some degree through that lens.

5th) after setting up a strawman of no laws, you turn around and use the reverse as proof, saying they aren't 100%.

6th) Lots of things "stop one death", that is not a sound basis for writing laws affecting 350million people.

Every one of those points is not even about arguing the merits of your position or what you presume mine to be, it's simply showing that for debate, and rational discussion, they are not very good starting points.


1) Yes they are, ..the Pep Boys from this forum and the NRA among others want NO new laws at all.
2)wow, in this situation I will disagree with you.
3) Saving the life of one child never gets old you want to regulate guns like we do cars and drivers or even pools hell yes fine with me. News Flash ....bubble wrap is protection
4) Nope that's the old sky is falling defense ..the 'Second Amendment "scare the public that the government will kick open their doors and take their guns is BS and anyone that preaches it knows it's a lie. Do the back ground check if the gun buyer is clean he gets his gun, simple.
5) Turn around, nope just answering your question. I want the laws and they will help ...will it stop everything no,...see #4
6) Bet you if I ask any one parent from Newtown .....they would side with me in saying you're the one wrong. So to answer you if it stops one death and the people still get to shoot and use guns that want to, then yes enact the laws.



CR, while I appreciate your approach on the subject I also reject your summation at the end , I think they are all great starting points. I'm still waiting to hear one good argument in sacrificing children for the sake of no new gun laws or background checks?

1) Yes they are, ..the Pep Boys from this forum and the NRA among others want NO new laws at all.

We already have enough laws on the books, ENFORCE THEM FIRST!

2)wow, in this situation I will disagree with you.

That's the best you have?


3) Saving the life of one child never gets old you want to regulate guns like we do cars and drivers or even pools hell yes fine with me. News Flash ....bubble wrap is protection

It also stagnates any kind of progress.

4) Nope that's the old sky is falling defense ..the 'Second Amendment "scare the public that the government will kick open their doors and take their guns is BS and anyone that preaches it knows it's a lie. Do the back ground check if the gun buyer is clean he gets his gun, simple.

As we have evidence that it's the natural progression of these things why should people be ok with it?

5) Turn around, nope just answering your question. I want the laws and they will help ...will it stop everything no,...see #4

It won't make a difference as the current laws, when violated, are rarely prosecuted. Here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/ted-cruzs-claim-on-gun-background-check-prosecutions/2013/04/11/e4c4fa6e-a2ed-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_blog.html):

2010 (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf): 72,659 denials
34,459 felony convictions/indictments
13,862 fugitives
44 prosecutions (0.06 percent of denials)
2009 (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/234173.pdf): 67,324 denials
32,652 felony convictions/indictments
11,341 fugitives
77 prosecutions (0.11 percent)
2008 (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/231052.pdf): 70,725 denials
39,526 felony convictions/indictments
9,464 fugitives
105 prosecutions (0.15 percent)
2007 (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/227604.pdf): 73,992 denials
23,703 felony convictions/indictments
4,803 fugitives
122 prosecutions (0.16 percent)

2006 (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/222474.pdf): 69,930 denials
25,259 felony convictions/indictments
4,235 fugitives
112 prosecutions (0.16 percent)

2005 (http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/bcft05.pdf): 66,705 denials
36.8 percent felony convictions/indictments
5.3 percent fugitives
135 prosecutions (0.20 percent)


6) Bet you if I ask any one parent from Newtown .....they would side with me in saying you're the one wrong. So to answer you if it stops one death and the people still get to shoot and use guns that want to, then yes enact the laws.

Ask Mark Mattioli. You lose your bet, but you're in the business of rhetoric not facts so it's hardly surprising.


CR, while I appreciate your approach on the subject I also reject your summation at the end , I think they are all great starting points. I'm still waiting to hear one good argument in sacrificing children for the sake of no new gun laws or background checks?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, because that's what pro gun rights people are saying, you ****ing weasel.

:puke:

sacrificing children for the sake of no new gun laws .....

Awesome....best hyperbole I've read this week.
Next you'll mention the opinion of a Newtown parent.
Oh wait, you already did.
You should apply to be Piers Morgans sidekick.

1) Yes they are, ..the Pep Boys from this forum and the NRA among others want NO new laws at all.
2)wow, in this situation I will disagree with you.
3) Saving the life of one child never gets old you want to regulate guns like we do cars and drivers or even pools hell yes fine with me. News Flash ....bubble wrap is protection
4) Nope that's the old sky is falling defense ..the 'Second Amendment "scare the public that the government will kick open their doors and take their guns is BS and anyone that preaches it knows it's a lie. Do the back ground check if the gun buyer is clean he gets his gun, simple.
5) Turn around, nope just answering your question. I want the laws and they will help ...will it stop everything no,...see #4
6) Bet you if I ask any one parent from Newtown .....they would side with me in saying you're the one wrong. So to answer you if it stops one death and the people still get to shoot and use guns that want to, then yes enact the laws.



CR, while I appreciate your approach on the subject I also reject your summation at the end , I think they are all great starting points. I'm still waiting to hear one good argument in sacrificing children for the sake of no new gun laws or background checks?
1) again, you change the statement. true, new gun laws are looked at with much scrutiny, but only because there are existing laws. You originally said, no laws period. New gun laws ought to be vetted very carefully, not inspired by emotional (usually flawed) situations.

2) I said that it's easy for an unaffected person to see a flaw in a law. Your response was "wow". So, not knowing much about you, except that you are a Giants fan, let me use this example. Suppose New York passed a law that says all NYJets fans are not mentally sane enough to drive on Sundays. The law doesn't affect you as a NYG fan, but surely you would question the merit of the law. Again, my point in this was only to refute your original statement that a person had no reason to be against a gun law because it didn't directly affect them.

3) We can and do regulate guns, even more stringently in some aspects than cars(ie no background check for a drivers license). Certainly, you could save one more child if the law required no distractions like video players, music, eating of fast food meals, in a moving vehicle, but that is, by most accounts, to much of an infringement on personal choice. There is a rational line, which is not defined by "saving one more child", that laws should be derived from.

4) Last I checked background checks are required for any commercial sale? You shift your argument to suit your needs, or you don't understand what is really being proposed. And again, the main point, which you deflect, is that all gun laws should be vetted against the 2nd amendment and whether a right is infringed. When it is being infringed, you have to answer more questions than just is it a popular sentiment, and look more deeply at the underlying causes.

5) no comment.

6) and if you ask one parent whose babysitter let their child die due to negligence at a pool they will want better regulations, and if you ask one person in the hospital for some horrible disease do they want better regulations, they will say yes. Emotional distress does not, and will not ever, in my opinion, lead to better laws.

In answer to your last question, none of the laws that are being discussed would have prevented Newtown. One child should never be a statistic, but the phrase has become overwhelmingly used to justify steps and laws that are rationally illogical, and ineffective.

To ask a question off of your question, what is the line for the number of children saved?

if last year 1000 children died as a result of "x", is that ok?
if last year 100 children died as a result of "x", is that ok?
if last year 10 children died as a result of "x", is that ok?
if last year 1 children died as a result of "x", is that ok?

At what point does "x" need to be outlawed completely, because even 1 child died due to it.

I am not saying that you don't do reasonably, and well thought out steps towards protecting life, but please don't use the argument if it saves just one, because it's an intellectually bankrupt, and emotionally charged, method of persuasion.

Well stated, CRR.

Again, a child's life when lost is a sad thing, so I almost hate myself for using this article to carry on my comments from earlier, but not so much as I hate the "if even 1 <insert appropriate sympathetic figure> is saved" fallacy.

Woman, 2 young children stabbed in San Jose (http://news.yahoo.com/woman-2-young-children-stabbed-san-jose-155744100.html)

A woman and 1-year-old boy were killed and a 3-year-old girl was wounded in a triple stabbing on Wednesday near San Jose, authorities said.
...
After an intense search for several hours, Ruben Ramirez, 27, was taken into custody without incident Wednesday night in San Francisco with the help of U.S. Marshals and police, authorities said.
...
Ramirez suffers from mental health problems and authorities have had prior contact with him, Stenderup said.

By GiantOne's logic of if even one life is saved is far more appropriate to this case since the person of interest has mental health issues. I am sure that GiantOne will now join with me in the just and righteous call for background checks before purchasing any kitchen utensils with a blade. GiantOne, I will send you the bill for my campaign travels.