The stricter the gun laws, the safer the children

[Tsing Tao]

What’s the rationale for removing “urban violence?”

Because urban violence is almost entirely driven by gang and illegal weapon crime, not by accidental or unintentional deaths (which your quoted article ignores in the study it refers to). Any legislation suggested by you, the article or any other uninformed-on-the-subject nitwit, would have no effect on the reduction of these types of deaths. Criminals won't give you their guns because you legislate it so.

So if you really want to discuss how legislation can effect unintentional deaths of children you need to focus on what would be effected with any legislation. But if you do that, the massive and glaringly large statistic where children are killed with guns (not by gangs or suicides) becomes almost non-existent.

 

[Banjo]

Army pulls out of violent Cape Town suburbs after show of force
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...own-suburbs-after-show-of-force-idUSKCN1UE12X

 

[LS1Z28]

Huh? A sixth grader could have found the study.

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2019/07/11/peds.2018-3283

Thanks for the link. That article wasn't listed under the link that CNN provided, and it doesn't come up if you search the word "firearm" and search for articles posted in July. How did you find it?

 

[UsualName]

Because urban violence is almost entirely driven by gang and illegal weapon crime, not by accidental or unintentional deaths (which your quoted article ignores in the study it refers to). Any legislation suggested by you, the article or any other uninformed-on-the-subject nitwit, would have no effect on the reduction of these types of deaths. Criminals won't give you their guns because you legislate it so.

So if you really want to discuss how legislation can effect unintentional deaths of children you need to focus on what would be effected with any legislation. But if you do that, the massive and glaringly large statistic where children are killed with guns (not by gangs or suicides) becomes almost non-existent.

What you don’t understand is that a byproduct of stricter gun laws is less illegal gun weapons and less illegal weapons led to less child deaths.

 

[UsualName]

Thanks for the link. That article wasn't listed under the link that CNN provided, and it doesn't come up if you search the word "firearm" and search for articles posted in July. How did you find it?

I typed pediatrics gun study July 2019 in google.

 

[Tsing Tao]

What you don’t understand is that a byproduct of stricter gun laws is less illegal gun weapons and less illegal weapons led to less child deaths.

Oh, I understand it just fine. The problem is that this so-called "by-product" you champion doesn't happen but over a long period of time, and in that interim law abiding citizens who do not commit crime are left unprotected and vulnerable to predators and criminals. Or, they are turned into criminals themselves because they ignore the laws you want to shove down their throat (supposedly for their own good) because they understand the truth and prefer breaking the law to a threat to their safety, or the safety of their family.

This is what you seemingly cannot grasp.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

It's legitimately frightening that we have people in responsible positions who think this is a compelling analogy.

What would be even more legitimately frightening is if you were in a responsible position.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Any stats on the disabled elderly?

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-16/61-year-old-disabled-man-demonstrates-exactly-why-you-need-ar-15?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+zerohedge/feed+(zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline,+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero)

If zerohedge went offline, would that leave you with a speech impediment?

 

[UsualName]

Oh, I understand it just fine. The problem is that this so-called "by-product" you champion doesn't happen but over a long period of time, and in that interim law abiding citizens who do not commit crime are left unprotected and vulnerable to predators and criminals. Or, they are turned into criminals themselves because they ignore the laws you want to shove down their throat (supposedly for their own good) because they understand the truth and prefer breaking the law to a threat to their safety, or the safety of their family.

This is what you seemingly cannot grasp.

What the hell are you talking about? The study looked at 3 laws background checks for guns and ammo and ID requirements to purchase weapons. Those laws do not hinder a law abiding person. Stop freaking out.

 

[Tsing Tao]

What the hell are you talking about? The study looked at 3 laws background checks for guns and ammo and ID requirements to purchase weapons. Those laws do not hinder a law abiding person. Stop freaking out.

You're missing the point. Again. Regardless of how I feel about these particular laws, they won't stop gun violence on children because, as I've been saying over and over, gun violence on children is largely a problem with gangs and illegal firearm use. So all you are doing is putting a law in place to target a section of the population already following the law while the ones breaking it and causing the statistical problem you are trying to fix will continue to go on breaking the law regardless of your legislation.

Simply put: YOU AREN'T SOLVING THE PROBLEM.