8 year old accidently shoots himself with an Uzi

Yeah, I can say that the risk of being accidently killed by a firearm is neglible. 1 in 4000 (0.025%) in my lifetime, that's neglible. No other context is needed.

Sure, handling a firearm frequently increases the risk of being accidently killed by a firearm, I can't argue that. Doing anything that could cause death more frequently increase the risk of death.

Firearms spend a lot of time sitting in desk drawers, locked in safes, etc, no argument.

I don't know what you're trying to get at. If you're just saying that the statistics are unreliable, then fine, you win, just as long as you're admitting (and you are) that they are unreliable on both sides.

At no time have i claimed that firing ranges are inherently dangerous.

Your argument is, and no surprise, an anecdotal argument. It in no way proves that firing ranges are safe. Conversely, i have seen no one here present a plausible argument that firing ranges are inherently dangerous. Your comments are meaningless.

Basically, all of your arguments are arguments form emotion and personal experience. As gratifying as they may be to you, they prove nothing. Furthermore, you continue to argue against positions which i have never taken. I have never said that firearms are inherently evil. I have never said that firing ranges are inherently dangerous. Your rants are meaningless in the context of what i have posted here.

Maporche, by contrast, attempts to present rational arguments based on evidence. I personally feel that his arguments don't succeed, but that does not alter the undeniable fact that he makes a sincere effort to present a reasonable argument for which he provides what he considers to be plausible support. In that regard, he is light years ahead of you. Furthermore, he presents his arguments in comprehensible standard English, while you become so exercised by the subject under discussion that your remarks consistently lapse into incoherence.

I have no reason not to continue to respond to you--in fact, i have good reason to continue to respond to you for the purpose of pointing out that you are making arguments against positions which i have never taken. I have much more reason to talk to Maporche, though, because his remarks are coherent and he makes a credible effort to present either evidence for or a logical basis for his arguments. That doesn't mean i think he's right, but it does mean that i find him a far more reasonable and enjoyable person to debate that people who rant about their wives possibly being raped, or who retail their personal experience of firing ranges.

In fact, while in the army, i qualified as an expert in the use of an M14 rifle, and expert in the use of an M1911 45 caliber automatic pistol, an expert in the use of an M60 machine gun, and a "marksman" (i barely passed) in the use of an M16 rifle (i never liked that weapon). While doing so, i saw some of the most appalling incompetence in the use of weapons by the trainees around me. I was largely spared the embarrassment of stupidity in firearms use because my grandfather had taught me safe firearms use from the time i was about seven years of age. I was involved in one truly frightening incident with a firearm, and witnessed another truly horrifying incident with a grenade. I was spotting for another trainee when we were being instructed in the use of the M16 rifle (i had trained in basic with an M14, so when the army switched exclusively to the M16, those of us who had not trained with it had to do so). The guy in the foxhole pulled back the slide on the M16, and the weapon immediately jammed. Just before the round was jacked into the chamber, i saw the end of his cleaning rod in the barrel of the weapon. I had never been particularly good at the low crawl, but i turned in an olympic-caliber performance that day. I low crawled out of there, while one of the drill sergeants stepped over, bodily picked the boy up, and pulled the gun from his grip, all the while keeping the weapon pointed down range. Kudos to the drill sergeant. On the other occasion, while i watched, another trainee went into the sandbag bunker from which we threw grenades with the XO of our training company. The trainee pulled the pin, dropped the grenade, and then stared at it stupidly. The Lieutenant kicked the grenade into the sump, grabbed the trainee around the waist, and dived out of the sandbag bunker with him in his arms. Kudos to the Lieutenant.

So i have been on firing ranges many times, and have never seen anyone injured or killed. I have also seen just how stupid people can be with firearms, and just how dangerous that can be. Anecdotal evidence, however, don't mean ****.

You can say it, but you can't support it, unless you insist upon the qualifier "accidentally." The odds of being the victim of a homicide by firearm are much higher, based on the evidence you provided:



So the odds of you being the victim of a homicide involving a firearm are much, much higher than the odds of being killed by an accidental firearms discharge.



That is precisely what i'm getting at, and there is nothing for me to "admit," given that i have never made a statistically based argument that firearms are more dangerous than automobiles. I have made the point that comparing firearms to such things as skateboards or playing football is incredibly stupid because of the apples to oranges nature of the comparison.



If that is the case, and i don't see any reason to argue against it, it inferentially argues for the high order of lethality of firearms, in view of this statistic which Parados provided:



That is, roughly, four as compared to three. That is hardly a comforting statistic, and if one considers that people operate automobiles every day, and often for an hour or more a day, it suggests an infinitely higher order of lethality in firearms than is the case with automobiles, especially if, as you point out, most firearms reside in drawers, safes, etc.

This appeal to statistics (and remember, i challenged Parados' use of statistics before you began to offer statistical evidence yourself--i haven't been taking sides in this) is bootless. Nothing has been proven by either you or Parados as to the absolute danger of automobiles and firearms.

I only jumped into this discussion when i did because hysterical emotional arguments were being offered, and firearms were being compared to skateboards and bicycles. At no time in this process have i taken a position that firearms are or are not "evil" or inherently dangerous. I have pointed out something which i don't think you can reasonably dispute, which is that firearms are designed to do gross bodily harm, while skateboards and fire extinguishers are not.

What a completely stupid and childish thing to say. Canadians, as a people, have participated in every major conflict there has been and have helped to keep the free world free.

The fact that we are intelligent enough to realize that guns are not good for the public good and only add to the decline in population have nothing to do with cowardice.

The fact that you hate your government makes you more of a coward than any that you portray to be.

Of course they are designed to cause harm. That is why I own a firearm; in case I need to shoot somebody.

I'm not the person arguing that using a firearm is as safe as using a skateboard or an automobile.

However, owning a firearm (which as we've pointed out, spends a lot of time not in use), has not been proven to be more dangerous than owning a skateboard, automobile, etc. I'm suggesting that you're making this point, just pointing out that it hasn't been proven.

I can't even follow where this thread is going.

Is there something wrong w/ having fears Intrepid?

Actually, i do think that it does not seem plausible to suggest that owning a skateboard or an automobile is inherently, that is to say, absolutely as dangerous as owning a firearm, and i would argue that as we don't have statistical evidence of a reliable nature, arguing from logic is the best we can do. I have not, however, attempted to make such a point, and i was first on the ground to point out that none of these contentions have been proven.

As i pointed out above, my point all along has been to show that skateboards and fire extinguishers are not analogous to firearms.



Don't feel like the Lone Ranger.

I would say, though, that a good deal of the opacity of this thread, and the confusion from which it arises is a result of the insistence upon emotional arguments offered by some members here, which, when pursued, rapidly verge on the hysterical.

why do I need to exclude them? If we are examining the impact of an item on society, why should we exclude intentional deaths? That would make no sense whatsoever.

There were over 250,000,000 registered motor vehicles in 2006 according to wiki.
Because the breakdown of stats is 15-24 year old. In order to include 15-18 year olds I have to include 19-24 year olds. If you don't like it you can present the numbers for under 19 if you can find them.

I once offered to I'mSickDavid to bury the hatchet and not to make personal remarks or to alter his screen name. However, he can never resist sh*t like this:



Apart from the appalling stupidity of making such a statement, and the profound ignorance it displays about Canadian history, about the Boer War, the Great War and the Second World War--it is evidence of the snide and insulting contempt which he displays for anyone who disagrees with him.

Because he continued to make remarks of that character after i had offered to bury the hatchet, i felt i was no longer bound to observe the decorum which i had promised and which he had promised, but failed to deliver. Later, he denied that he had ever made such remarks as that i am a coward and a traitor, told me that i am no gentleman (incredible coming from him, eh?) and that he was putting me on ignore. He told me i was no gentleman in a thread in which he compared Obama to Hitler. I asked him to enlighten me as to in what being a gentleman consists, but i guess he had me on ignore by then--at any event, i never got an answer.

How many hours a day is the average automobile driven? How many hours a day is a gun handled?

The numbers just do not equate.

To be fair when I stated I never seen anyone harm at a gun range I mean harm to a degree that they needed more then minor first aid.

Having a very hot shell casing going down your shirt front or getting you finger trap from time to time in a moving part of a firearms is not uncommon.

But I had never witness anyone shot at a gun range and never hear of such a happening at any of the gun ranges I been going to for decades.

I known a number of people who had die from enjoying the hobby of ultra light flying for example but never had that event occur in the hobby of target shooting.

The flying community I am part of were a great deal smaller then the shooting community I am a part of and the time span of my flying days compare to the decades of target shooting does not compare either.

Flying ultra lights are a great deal more of a risk then living at a gun range would be.

LOL..
Talk about a misuse of statistics maporsche.


First of all you are not using just car accidents but include walking, planes, trains, boats, space shuttles, donkey drawn carts, agricultural vehicles etc.


The odds of dying by a gun over your lifetime are actually
1 in 124
compared to
1 in 77 for all walking and riding.

I have fear concerning bears? I have concerns not the same thing in my mind.

I spended a thousand dollars for a parachute system when I was into flying an ultra light.

Fear? No just taking precautions to deal with a possible very bad outcome.

Do I think it is likely that I would need the 45 in bear country hell no however do I think that the extra weight is worth the cost of carrying it just in case yes.

You really don't get it. Do you. You keep comparing things that are not manufactured for the purpose of killing but with which people can be killed. A gun is made for the purpose of killing.

Nobody is saying that death does not occur during other activities.

Maybe you could find statistics on how many people carry weapons in bear country and how many do not. Maybe you could break this down by country as well.

Also, it is illegal to carry guns into some National Parks etc. What do you think the chances of being attacked by a bear are? Maybe you could find statistics on this as well.

You are more likely to die in your car on your way there.

U keep implying that killing shoud not be done; we REJECT that.
There is a time for killing and if u fail to do so,
then the death penalty may very well apply to u,
with no appeal.

Killing is a wholesome, good and proper thing to DO,
in the appropriate circumstances.





David

Bullshit. Killing is never wholesome or good.

Also, we are talking about an accidental gun death of an 8 year old child. NOT killing.

Golf clubs aren't designed to kill people either.

That said, I can take the nose off your face with a wedge faster than you can blink.

Setanta wrote:



Not to rain on your parade, Set, as I completely agree with you on your main argument here, but you'll find that many states (Massachusetts included) do require an applicant for a direarms permit to demonstrate "the ability to safely and effectively operate a firearm." In fact, you have to go to a police firing range and show that you not only know how to handle a gun safely but can actually hit a target. Now, mind you, this applies only to handguns, weapons for which you need a permit to carry. Rifles and shotguns are a different matter. In Massachusetts you apply for an FID (firearms Identification) card and all that they do is check your CORI, i.e. that you don't have a felony record. I've never heard of anyone being turned down for an FID card.

Of course, there are states where all you need is a photo ID and a credit card to purchase virtually any kind of firearm your racing little heart desires. There is, however, a federal law against private ownership of fully automatic weapons. This being the case, I still haven't figured out how that fracas in Springfield was legal.