4 ms·

This took me 15 seconds to find, here's a 2-year old and a 4-year old shot yesterday because of a gun lying around at home. https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/ma

This took me 15 seconds to find, here's a 2-year old and a 4-year old shot yesterday because of a gun lying around at home. https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/marietta-man-arrested-after-child-shoots-self-toddler-with-gun https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/marietta-man-arrested-after...

leephillips 5y ago
That happened on Monday. Today is Thursday. Also, it wasn’t a “murder” (I’ll take a killing, but the victim did not die.) EDIT: I can’t help be curious about what’s in the mind of someone who is so blatantly dishonest. Right at the top it says “Published 2 days ago”, and in the second paragraph it says “Monday”. Is the idea that you assume no one will actually take a look at the link?
- oblio 5y ago
  Just because it happened slightly earlier doesn't diminish his point, which is that it's a common occurrence.
  - NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
    It isn't a common occurrence. There are 330,000,000 people in the U.S. There are more lightning deaths (not strikes) than toddler-firearms killings.
- aflag 5y ago
  So your point is that it is not that bad because it really only happen once every couple days? I mean, let's say it happens once a month or once a year. Is it worth it? Are guns preventing more deaths than they are causing?
  - leephillips 5y ago
    No, neither that nor any of the other countless things that I did not say are not my point. My point is that the claim that a toddler kills someone with a gun every day is false.
    - kevincrane 5y ago
      What's the appropriate frequency for a child to accidentally kill or maim someone before it becomes "okay"?
      - leephillips 5y ago
        It can never be okay. What an astonishingly absurd and gruesome notion.
        aflag 5y ago
        Yes, the original post was not trying to precisely inform the frequency, just that it's not a once in a generation occurrence, but rather something that happens regularly. By trying to refute the frequency, you're completely missing the argument. That's what me and other people are saying.
        leephillips 5y ago
        In order to have a rational and productive discussion about policy one needs to have some kind of handle on reality, as well as a minimum of truthfulness and respect for the people you’re talking to. Overstating the incidence of an event by a factor of 20 means you don’t have a handle on reality. Deliberately lying about news events means you’re not truthful. Putting words in people’s mouths and imparting inhumane motivations to them means you lack respect. All of these things happened in just this handful of comments, and, no, I don‘t think I’m missing anything at all.
        phpnode 5y ago
        The phrase "everyday occurrence" does not mean that something literally happens every day, it means that it happens commonly enough that it's not broadly notable. You derailed this comment thread by quibbling over the specific frequency of these tragic events, rather than focussing on the point - which was that these accidental killings do indeed happen frequently - perhaps more frequently than you realised.
  - Zababa 5y ago
    I personally don't need a car in my day to day life. We should just ban them. Do you see how many people get killed every year?
    - aflag 5y ago
      To be fair, cars are probably in their way out too. Their are indeed inefficient and dangerous tools. But yeah, being able to connect cities, people with the best society can offer is a benefit much greater than people using guns to threat one another.
    - kelnos 5y ago
      I think it's a lot easier to make a non-destructive positive case for cars, despite the number of people killed in car crashes every day, than it is to make the case for guns, which are devices specifically designed to injure and kill.
      - Zababa 5y ago
        I don't think it is. "Injure and kill" may be precisely what you want to do if you're in a self-defense situation.
- kevincrane 5y ago
  > I can’t help be curious about what’s in the mind of someone who is so blatantly dishonest. Mostly lies. My mind is just swimming in them, it's hard to think about anything else tbh

leephillips 5y ago

That happened on Monday. Today is Thursday. Also, it wasn’t a “murder” (I’ll take a killing, but the victim did not die.) EDIT: I can’t help be curious about what’s in the mind of someone who is so blatantly dishonest. Right at the top it says “Published 2 days ago”, and in the second paragraph it says “Monday”. Is the idea that you assume no one will actually take a look at the link?

oblio 5y ago
Just because it happened slightly earlier doesn't diminish his point, which is that it's a common occurrence.
- NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
  It isn't a common occurrence. There are 330,000,000 people in the U.S. There are more lightning deaths (not strikes) than toddler-firearms killings.
aflag 5y ago
So your point is that it is not that bad because it really only happen once every couple days? I mean, let's say it happens once a month or once a year. Is it worth it? Are guns preventing more deaths than they are causing?
- leephillips 5y ago
  No, neither that nor any of the other countless things that I did not say are not my point. My point is that the claim that a toddler kills someone with a gun every day is false.
  - kevincrane 5y ago
    What's the appropriate frequency for a child to accidentally kill or maim someone before it becomes "okay"?
    - leephillips 5y ago
      It can never be okay. What an astonishingly absurd and gruesome notion.
      - aflag 5y ago
        Yes, the original post was not trying to precisely inform the frequency, just that it's not a once in a generation occurrence, but rather something that happens regularly. By trying to refute the frequency, you're completely missing the argument. That's what me and other people are saying.
        leephillips 5y ago
        In order to have a rational and productive discussion about policy one needs to have some kind of handle on reality, as well as a minimum of truthfulness and respect for the people you’re talking to. Overstating the incidence of an event by a factor of 20 means you don’t have a handle on reality. Deliberately lying about news events means you’re not truthful. Putting words in people’s mouths and imparting inhumane motivations to them means you lack respect. All of these things happened in just this handful of comments, and, no, I don‘t think I’m missing anything at all.
        phpnode 5y ago
        The phrase "everyday occurrence" does not mean that something literally happens every day, it means that it happens commonly enough that it's not broadly notable. You derailed this comment thread by quibbling over the specific frequency of these tragic events, rather than focussing on the point - which was that these accidental killings do indeed happen frequently - perhaps more frequently than you realised.
- Zababa 5y ago
  I personally don't need a car in my day to day life. We should just ban them. Do you see how many people get killed every year?
  - aflag 5y ago
    To be fair, cars are probably in their way out too. Their are indeed inefficient and dangerous tools. But yeah, being able to connect cities, people with the best society can offer is a benefit much greater than people using guns to threat one another.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    I think it's a lot easier to make a non-destructive positive case for cars, despite the number of people killed in car crashes every day, than it is to make the case for guns, which are devices specifically designed to injure and kill.
    - Zababa 5y ago
      I don't think it is. "Injure and kill" may be precisely what you want to do if you're in a self-defense situation.
kevincrane 5y ago
> I can’t help be curious about what’s in the mind of someone who is so blatantly dishonest. Mostly lies. My mind is just swimming in them, it's hard to think about anything else tbh