07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 168169170171172 ...
tools
  1. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    People still fail to realize that gun control is a misplacement of the real issue. PEOPLE. Also fail to realize the United States is different than any other country that has gun control. Obvious geographical differences

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    plumbrich and Scott7217 like this.
    01-08-2014 07:10 AM
  2. Scott7217's Avatar
    People still fail to realize that gun control is a misplacement of the real issue. PEOPLE.
    Going back to the issue about Desert Tech dropping its bid to sell to Pakistan, would you consider that to be a form of gun control? If I understand the situation correctly, Desert Tech believes that a total restriction on sales will save American lives. Therefore, would you agree with Desert Tech's premise that denying sales can have a positive effect?
    Fairclough likes this.
    01-08-2014 03:58 PM
  3. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Going back to the issue about Desert Tech dropping its bid to sell to Pakistan, would you consider that to be a form of gun control? If I understand the situation correctly, Desert Tech believes that a total restriction on sales will save American lives. Therefore, would you agree with Desert Tech's premise that denying sales can have a positive effect?
    I would call it an ethical decision.

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    Scott7217 likes this.
    01-08-2014 05:22 PM
  4. Scott7217's Avatar
    I would call it an ethical decision.
    However, most firearms advocates would say that restricting sales only hurts legitimate users. Using the Desert Tech case, terrorists groups like Al-Qaeda would not be affected at all because they acquire their weapons illegally. Whether Desert Tech filled the contract or not doesn't matter. If Al-Qaeda really wanted rifles from Desert Tech, they could simply smuggle them into the country.

    So, the only people affected would be Pakistani military or police who are allied with the Americans. They would need high-precision weapons to combat terrorists. If the Pakistani government cannot fight back against the terrorists, we may have to send US troops there, which would definitely put American lives at risk.
    palandri likes this.
    01-08-2014 07:00 PM
  5. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    However, most firearms advocates would say that restricting sales only hurts legitimate users. Using the Desert Tech case, terrorists groups like Al-Qaeda would not be affected at all because they acquire their weapons illegally. Whether Desert Tech filled the contract or not doesn't matter. If Al-Qaeda really wanted rifles from Desert Tech, they could simply smuggle them into the country.

    So, the only people affected would be Pakistani military or police who are allied with the Americans. They would need high-precision weapons to combat terrorists. If the Pakistani government cannot fight back against the terrorists, we may have to send US troops there, which would definitely put American lives at risk.
    There are differences. Sales to private individuals vs being sold to a military entity.

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    01-08-2014 11:03 PM
  6. SteveISU's Avatar
    Well, the US military went in without Pakistan's permission to kill Osama bin Laden. They were able to finish the mission without incurring any American casualties, so they're not totally inept. Also, the US military has access to classified information, so I would expect them to know more than a private company without such access.

    As far as arms sales goes, I think any company should know whether the buyer is an ally or an enemy before even submitting the bid. In any case, Desert Tech, the company in question, has learned an important lesson: Figure out who is your friend and who is your foe first. I don't expect them to make the same mistake again, especially if they want to continue making money selling weapons.

    And then there's fast and furious.
    01-09-2014 09:53 AM
  7. SteveISU's Avatar
    And we have seen how they work in several countries. It is all in the execution, and the fact that we let it get too far already.
    Other countries don't have a second amendment. The only thing gun laws do is inhibit law abiding citizens from owning certain guns. Lets go through all the gun related crime in Chicago and lets look for how many of those people had Firearm ID's (FOID cards) which are mandatory in IL. My guess is they'd be less than 1% if that. If someone has a propensity to kill someone, my guess is they aren't going to follow the gun control laws.
    01-09-2014 09:58 AM
  8. palandri's Avatar
    Other countries don't have a second amendment. ... .
    Switzerland
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-09-2014 12:27 PM
  9. SteveISU's Avatar
    Switzerland
    They don't have an Army. Almost all men in their 20's are required to undergo military training. All males are issued "OMG.....scary" assault weapons yet they have a very low incidence of gun related crime. All this proves is that it's the person holding the gun, not the gun itself.
    01-09-2014 12:31 PM
  10. palandri's Avatar
    They don't have an Army. Almost all men in their 20's are required to undergo military training.
    I am not talking about an Army or Military training. I am talking about having a 2nd amendment like ours.
    01-09-2014 12:36 PM
  11. SteveISU's Avatar
    I am not talking about an Army or Military training. I am talking about having a 2nd amendment like ours.
    They don't need a 2nd amendment, the government hands every "average joe citizen" weapons and ammo. All men in their 20's are issued assault weapons as the citizens are their military. The swiss don't have a free standing army.
    palandri likes this.
    01-09-2014 12:44 PM
  12. palandri's Avatar
    They don't need a 2nd amendment, the government hands every "average joe citizen" weapons and ammo. All men in their 20's are issued assault weapons as the citizens are their military. The swiss don't have a free standing army.
    Got it, the practice of universal conscription in Switzerland already arms everyone.
    01-09-2014 01:11 PM
  13. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Going back to the issue about Desert Tech dropping its bid to sell to Pakistan, would you consider that to be a form of gun control? If I understand the situation correctly, Desert Tech believes that a total restriction on sales will save American lives. Therefore, would you agree with Desert Tech's premise that denying sales can have a positive effect?
    I would consider it an effort to keep their weapons out of the hands of people most likely to use them against American service members currently stationed in that area.

    This has NOTHING to do with the gun control issue, that issue concerns Americans having access to civilian versions of military weapons and our second Amendment right to bear arms.
    01-09-2014 06:26 PM
  14. Scott7217's Avatar
    I would consider it an effort to keep their weapons out of the hands of people most likely to use them against American service members currently stationed in that area.
    We both agree that we want Americans to be safe. So, let's say I want to write a letter to my senator to address the issue of arms sales to Pakistan. What do I tell my senator? Should I ask that the US military halt the bidding from American companies? Should we stop all sales (from both US and foreign companies) to Pakistan? Do we need a complete weapons embargo (which is an act of war, technically)?
    01-10-2014 03:22 AM
  15. Martin Disch's Avatar
    Living in Switzerland, I'm so fed up with how people who have absolutely no clue how things work here, use us in their arguments over gun control.

    Switzerland does not have a second amendment of any kind and it certainly does not hand out guns to all young men.
    If you join the military, you're given a gun after undergoing a series of psychological tests. And yes, you're allowed to keep your gun at home, but by now many decide to leave it in the barracks. Even when keeping the gun at home, it is often locked away with the keys not even in the house but someplace else.

    Switzerland does not only have very strict gun laws, guns in general are just not as socially accepted as in the U.S.
    Nobody never ever has his gun with him, because guns are locked away. And because they're where they belong and we don't have them around all the time, people don't try to solve problems with them, resulting in fewer mass shootings and the like.

    So please, stop comparing Switzerland to the U.S., because things are very different here and that's a good thing.

    Posted via Android Central App
    01-10-2014 07:08 AM
  16. palandri's Avatar
    Living in Switzerland, I'm so fed up with how people who have absolutely no clue how things work here, use us in their arguments over gun control.

    Switzerland does not have a second amendment of any kind and it certainly does not hand out guns to all young men.
    If you join the military, you're given a gun after undergoing a series of psychological tests. And yes, you're allowed to keep your gun at home, but by now many decide to leave it in the barracks. Even when keeping the gun at home, it is often locked away with the keys not even in the house but someplace else.

    Switzerland does not only have very strict gun laws, guns in general are just not as socially accepted as in the U.S.
    Nobody never ever has his gun with him, because guns are locked away. And because they're where they belong and we don't have them around all the time, people don't try to solve problems with them, resulting in fewer mass shootings and the like.

    So please, stop comparing Switzerland to the U.S., because things are very different here and that's a good thing.

    Posted via Android Central App
    Thanks for posting that! It clears a lot of things up.
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-10-2014 08:35 AM
  17. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Living in Switzerland, I'm so fed up with how people who have absolutely no clue how things work here, use us in their arguments over gun control.
    The same could be said to those the claim that gun control laws in effect in other countries such as the U.K. or Australia, could be applied here but honestly they just won't work here. Because we do have a second amendment. Things are different here than any other place in the world.
    01-10-2014 09:07 AM
  18. Scott7217's Avatar
    There are differences. Sales to private individuals vs being sold to a military entity.
    US arms sales to Pakistan are very interesting. Here are a few examples as detailed by the Congressional Research Service:

    - 2,007 TOW anti-armor missiles ($186 million; all delivered)

    - Perry-class missile frigate USS McInerney ($65 million for refurbishment; delivered)

    - 20 AH-1F Cobra attack helicopters ($48 million, 12 refurbished and delivered)

    - 115 M-109 self-propelled howitzers ($87 million)

    - 18 new F-16C/D Block 52 combat aircraft (valued at $1.43 billion; all delivered)

    - F-16 armaments including 500 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles; 1,450 2,000-pound bombs; 500 JDAM Tail Kits for gravity bombs; and 1,600 Enhanced Paveway laser-guided kits, also for gravity bombs ($629 million)

    - 100 Harpoon anti-ship missiles ($298 million)

    - 500 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles ($95 million)

    - six Phalanx Close-In Weapons System naval guns ($80 million)

    Source: Major U.S. Arms Sales and Grants to Pakistan Since 2001 (March 7, 2013 report)

    The US does not appear to have a problem selling weapons to the Pakistani military.
    01-10-2014 03:20 PM
  19. Fairclough's Avatar
    The same could be said to those the claim that gun control laws in effect in other countries such as the U.K. or Australia, could be applied here but honestly they just won't work here. Because we do have a second amendment. Things are different here than any other place in the world.
    Actually we had something similar to a second amendment. Our constitution is the powers our government can do. Gun control was not one of them, this basically having originally a low restriction on guns. However due to social change. E.g. people getting over bigger guns bigger men and wanting to stop massacres our government did what they could do within in the constitution. A) Take a referendum and change the constitution or B) implement other policy e.g. ban imports of guns, for state levels to implemented licencing.

    Similar to the above post, our guns aren't carried on us. To bring one home it has to be stored at another facilities for at least 6 months then after the probation time if you have the correct gun cabinets and safes etc then you may bring one home. If you want a bigger gun then you have to reason why you need it. We changed law to restrict rounds in guns and firing speed.



    As back on topic.

    I view its a pr stunt, a company will look in its best interest. E.g. look at accounting firms. If their convicted they can be banned in over 160 countries from 1 conviction. How do they avoid this, if guilty they merge (how the big 8 turned to a big 4). Now 1 of them was almost pinged for allowing officials launder billions of dollars. They settled for a "120 million dollar donation". The donation was clearly a pr stunt to put them on good grace.

    Now what is the opportunity cost, saving 120 million not having a business or paying 120 million and keeping their 26 billion a year income.

    In the gun position, signing a contract to other military's at this state could be seen bad (this potentially losing home contracts) thus sacrificing 1 contract can save many others.

    Just my logic.

    - Android Central App. N'oublions jamais l'Australie, Villers-Bretonneux.
    01-18-2014 07:52 AM
  20. Scott7217's Avatar
    In the gun position, signing a contract to other military's at this state could be seen bad (this potentially losing home contracts) thus sacrificing 1 contract can save many others.
    I could see where Desert Tech felt that it would not win the contract with Pakistan, so they withdrew their bid and publicly announced their reasons to make their brand more appealing for US contracts, especially in the field of law enforcement. Perhaps another US company will supply rifles to Pakistan to go along with the arms (e.g. bombs, missiles) that were already sold.
    01-19-2014 05:37 PM
  21. Fairclough's Avatar
    Worth a read;
    WNPR News | Connecticut’s Public Media Source for News and Ideas

    There was a follow up study of small children in schools learning gun safety... they then planted 2 guns with ammo in the room. The children pointed the guns into their faces etc for a few minutes pulling the trigger before remembering the lesson they were just taught.

    - Android Central App. N'oublions jamais l'Australie, Villers-Bretonneux.
    01-28-2014 05:38 AM
  22. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Have a link to that follow-up study? I'm curious what ages those kids were and the findings of the study.

    For the article you linked to, I'd like to see a more broken down list of incidents by age, stepped year by year instead of grouping them. With that massive spike in the 15-19 range, is that heavily weighed to one or two years? A curve? Evenly spread out?

    In children less than 15, almost two-thirds were due to accidents.
    What's interesting about this quote from the article is that the incident rates of those ages is so small that it doesn't take much to make such a claim for any of the reasons. While it's probably factually true, I think statistically it's irrelevant. It's like saying two out of three people like apples, but only surveying 3 people. It would take a relatively small increase in one of the other categories to give it the same claim. Or a drop in the accident one. Also consider at those young ages, especially the very young, kids aren't typically thinking of assault and suicide. So it's no surprise that *if* something happens that injures a small kid that has a gun, chances are it'll be accidental.

    It also only addresses the reasons for injuries and deaths that happen. It'd be interesting to compare those rates to kids with guns in the home that haven't had any incidents involving them.
    01-28-2014 06:52 AM
  23. SteveISU's Avatar
    I bet the rate of kids in homes with guns who never get injured is much higher than the rate that do. I have multiple firearms and all are locked, my hand guns are in a biometric safe that only I or my wife can get in. My 6yr old has asked to see my guns but I have repeatedly told him they aren't toys and he will have to wait till he's older. This study is like saying the rate of kids hospitalized with dog bites is higher in families with dogs. No ****? So the answer is don't have a dog and don't let your kid play with other kids who have dogs.
    01-28-2014 10:26 AM
  24. Fairclough's Avatar
    The full study can be found here (http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...-1809.full.pdf) for those not on a mobile the article link is (Yale Study Examines Rate Youth Are Hospitalized for Gun Injuries | WNPR News).

    Steve that is like saying I bet the houses without drownings in their pool is greater then the pools with drownings. I think the main issue is that guns are often laying around the house, sometimes unused for years and when a child finds it catastrophe can occur. Even with a gun safe they can be opened by a child, here is an article of 3 year old opening one (Unsafe Gun Safes Can Be Opened By A Three-Year Old - Forbes). As for your dog example, similar to how some owners store their guns a very secure safe I would make sure there is supervision when a child is around a dog, take precautions e.g. not invite other children over if your dog has been gaurd dog trained unless you are home.

    Mooncatt in the method it states "We used the 2009 Kids Inpatient Database to identify hospitalizations from firearm-related injuries in young people <20 years of age; International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, and external-cause-of injury codes were used to categorize the injuries and the causes as follows: assault, suicide attempt, unintentional, or undetermined. Incidences were calculated by using the weighted number of cases and the intercensal population. Risk ratios compared incidences." Through the results it displays they looked into 7391 hospitalizations to produce the graph. They concluded with On average, 20 US children and adolescents were hospitalized each day in 2009 due to firearm injuries. Public health efforts are needed to reduce this common source of childhood injury.

    Being a hot topic, guns, I have added this infomation to shown their is no bias which is the most common conjecture.

    FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have
    no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

    FUNDING: Supported by the Child Abuse Funds of the
    Department Pediatrics, Yale School of Medicine, and by
    donations to the Child Protection Team, Boston Medical Center.

    POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated
    they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
    Demographic information, including age at the time of the hospitalization (grouped as 04, 59, 1014, and 1519 years of age), gender, race, and health insurance (private, Medicaid, self-pay, or other), was obtained. Injuries were classified according to the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, codes for injuries (800904, 910959)8 and grouped into the following categories: traumatic brain injury (TBI); fracture; internal injury of the thorax, abdomen, or pelvis; open wound of head, neck, trunk, or limbs; injury to blood vessels; injury to nerves or spinal cord; and other. We excluded cases in which the only injury code was for a late effect.

    Overall, the estimated direct hospital costs of firearm-related hospitalizations were $146, 710, 029.
    Its daunting how as they age injury increases, decreases from accidental and increases significantly to intentional.
    Attached Thumbnails Firearms and self-defense-dd.png  
    01-28-2014 11:12 PM
  25. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I think the main issue is that guns are often laying around the house, sometimes unused for years and when a child finds it catastrophe can occur.
    That is pure speculation on your part. That's why I would be interested in the other stats. I doubt that scenario is very often, but whether it is or isn't can't be determined by this study.

    Mooncatt in the method it states "We used the 2009 Kids Inpatient Database to identify hospitalizations from firearm-related injuries in young people <20 years of age; International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, and external-cause-of injury codes were used to categorize the injuries and the causes as follows: assault, suicide attempt, unintentional, or undetermined. Incidences were calculated by using the weighted number of cases and the intercensal population. Risk ratios compared incidences." Through the results it displays they looked into 7391 hospitalizations to produce the graph. They concluded with On average, 20 US children and adolescents were hospitalized each day in 2009 due to firearm injuries. Public health efforts are needed to reduce this common source of childhood injury.
    But the statistical closeness between the three main reasons is still too close to call on the younger demographic simply due to the greatly lower incident rates. The overall was less than 5 per 100,000 for any one of the lower age groups, and that's before breaking down the reasons. And like I mentioned in my last post that it's to be expected accidents would rank higher anyway just by the nature of kids and their curiosity.
    01-29-2014 12:23 AM
4,617 ... 168169170171172 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD