How To Argue For Gun Control.

Same with guns. We have more training programs and safety features on guns.

Again, same with guns. You don't have to worry about dropping one for the most part.

Not when it comes to ratio.

 

Mac

Well cars are not guns, cars were designed as vehicles guns are weapons.

But although cars were not specifically designed as weapons there are certain problems associated with private car ownership and a number of regulations have grown up to tackle those concerns.

People have to have a driving licence, and they only get a driving licence if they have passed a driving test. There are bars on people with a medical complains that may cause them to lose control of a vehicle (e.g. epileptics) or otherwise be of danger to other road users or pedestrians (sight defects). We remove licences from those that we deem unfit to hold one (e.g. drunk drivers). People have to have a tax disc and current insurance and driving without is illegal.

Then there are the rules of the road, which side of the road to drive, how to turn left or right, how to conduct at traffic lights or crossing points.
The car manufacturer also has a number of regulations to make sure the car is safe and a user has to have a yearly certificate of road worthiness to make sure it is still safe and driving without one is illegal.

I could go on but I think you get the idea.

To me gun ownership has its own concerns and so needs appropriate regulation to address those concerns.

*
In the UK automobile accident data is collected and correlated so that accident black spots can be highlighted and the reason for accidents happening discovered so action can be taken as needed (such as installing traffic lights or road signs, putting in new speed restrictions or traffic calming or simply increasing visibility). This is an ongoing operation due to changes in road use and changing demographics.

I would hope you had something similar going on in the US?

Many societies try to set regulate drivers and driving and the type of regulation is often dependent on the number of drivers, the higher the number the more regulation is usually needed. The UK is a small island with a lot of cars.

We test drivers ability through a testing and licensing scheme, backed up with a penalty point system for bad driving (get too many points and you loose your licence). Again these things are constantly under review to see if improvements to the testing or the regulation of licences can be made (I believe the last driving test update was in 2003).

Also all cars are registered and their owners known and a driver must have insurance cover.

What happens in the US, can anyone that buy’s a car be able to take it on the road without licence or insurance or having it registered?

On the other side car manufactures, bring in new safely features as technology allows because cars can be sold on their safety (and I believe it reduces the insurance premiums) A new safety feature I’ve heard about is proximity braking systems that apply the brakes if the cars gets close to something even if the driver doesn’t. But a certain level of car safety is regulated for. New cars have to pass safety test before being allowed to be sold and existing cars have to pass a yearly MOT and that certificate has to be valid for the car to be allowed on the road. Then there are other things like safety belt laws and baby car seat regulations etc.

**

Now guns are weapons sold for how unsafe they are, that is, how much harm they can do to the target or how accurately it can be hit.

And that’s the thing guns are not cars.

For example the data for gun crimes and accidents are already collected and correlated, but where areas of concern are highlighted many pro-gunners seem against any action being taken or argue for the removal of regulations and legislation already in place. The equivalent idea transposed to automobiles is that there shouldn’t be any tests of driving ability, street signing, traffic laws, etc.

But let’s take the things that we have been using to try and reduce harm from having a lot of automobiles in a society and impose them on gun ownership?

All gun owners would need to pass a test of competence to get a gun licence and have a current licence.

All guns would need to be registered and any theft or resale reported and logged.

Insurance would be needed to be paid up and valid.

Accidents or misuse (e.g. having a gun while intoxicated) could result in penalty points, increased insurance payments or loss of licence.

All guns would be needed to be inspected once a year for the licence to be renewed.

Now some people wouldn’t care about such rules but many pro-gunners I’ve talked would think them an outrageous attack.

 

Mac



But it doesn’t back up what you said or your premise that it proved Americans are more bloodthirsty and violent than other humans on the planet.

That was to the question why you thought Americans were more bloodthirsty and violent that other humans.

And you claimed “Let me specify. Most of our murder rates are gang related”

But that didn’t seem to stand up to scrutiny (Posts 35, 81, 90, 111)

So have you ‘revised’ your views and now don’t think Americans are exceptionally bloodthirsty and violent?

To which I’d ask why is the murder rate so high in the US?

 

Mac

That doesn’t make sense if the information is examined and I really don’t understand what you mean by ‘England and Wales beat Switzerland’ you need to be more specific.

Firearm-related deaths rate per 100,000 population.
US –2011 - 10.3
England and Wales – 0.22
Switzerland - 3.04
Homicides by any method per 100.000
US - 2011: 5.1
England and Wales - 1.03
Switzerland 0.57
Gun related homicides per 100,000
US 2011: 3.6 (2013 3.54)
England and Wales: 0.06 (2013 0.04)
Switzerland 0.16 (2013 0.23)
*

The ease of access to guns is clearly and issue in relation to the US

 

Mac

For me the link only went to central Forbes page not an article

But don’t worry I think we’ve had this argument thrown at us before – basically that there has been a reduction in crime so prudent gun control isn’t needed.

Well I’d wish you would read the posts anyway to repeat –

First I’d point out that statistically in nearly all developed countries that seems to be on the wane and nobody seems to know why although there are many theories here are just a few - the reduction of lead in petrol (lead poisoning increase violent behaviour) , women getting more rights and entering the workplace (which some claimed has ‘feminised’ society, calming it) liberal abortion laws. (a theory advanced by the authors of Freakonomics who argued that making it easier to get an abortion has diminished the number of children born into the underclass.) an ageing population (oldies are less violent) even the popularity of computer games (people are getting their aggression out on pixals rather than people).

But having said that i have noted that there seems to be a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them seeking alternative solutions to their social and political problems and also fuels fear.

The problem is that there is still vast numbers of people dying and the level of fear often seems higher even though the crime rate has fallen and pro guns often seem to promote that fear to ‘sell’ guns as been needed for protection and/or as a deterrent to crime, both of which don’t seem to be the case.

*
The point is many gun advocates say that gun ownership reduces crime so significantly that it outweighs the downside of VASTLY increased gun related crime and homicides. But that doesn’t seem to be the case

Well in homicide after a dramatic drop in the 90’s I think stabilized would be a better description

Between 1993 and 2000, the gun homicide rate dropped by nearly half, from 7.0 homicides to 3.8 homicides per 100,000 people. Since then, the gun homicide rate has remained relatively flat. From 2009 to 2014, the most recent year data are available, the number of gun homicides has hovered around 11,000 and 12,000 per year. Pew research

 

Mac

But we have seen time and again that even those who are ‘trained’ can act irresponsibly and not many people that own guns seem to have had training.

I mean here are some reason people shot people in may 2015

My fiancée and I had an argument, so I open carried my gun to a park and shot four random people.

I crashed my car. When I told my boyfriend about it he got mad so I shot him to death.

After he was released from hospital, my husband wasn’t keeping up with his chores. So I shot him.

My coworker pushed me and made me drop my bible so I shot him.

I found suspicious calls on my boyfriend’s phone so I shot him. He was armed at the time, too.

Rather than let my ex-wife win custody, I shot my own daughter to death.

After a day painting condos, my co-worker and I argued about whose equipment was whose. So I shot him.

My girlfriend got into a fight with her relatives over control of the TV. So I shot some of them for her.

But you seem unable to present anything that supports that in fact the evidence points the other way that the ease of access to guns points to there been more likelihood of gun related deaths and crimes involving guns when compared to other advanced countries.

 

Can you give a specific example?

 

Which is pretty irrelevant. A death is a death either way. In fact it might even work against you. If something that isn't designed to harm you does in fact harm you then its considered a hazardous object. Therefore if we're to have more regulation, it'll be toward the thing that is more dangerous to the operator even when used properly. Guns take effort and purpose to become deadly to someone and its usually toward someone else.

If we switch to trolleys, buses, subways, and trains we wouldn't have a car death problem.

To get a license yes, however to get a permit here in Florida all you have to do is pass the written exam and have someone over 21 riding shotgun. Technically you can jump in the car and drive all the way to California and the guy riding shotgun doesn't do anything to aid in your driving. Would you reccomend the same for gun ownership?

We remove gun rights to those who drink too.

When I had my permit for a while I'd drove without insurance.

This would be equivalent to laws against brandishing a firearm.

This is equivalent to making safe guns.

I think I do.

 

So.... It doesn't matter then.

 

Of course.

I believe so but I haven't looked it up.

No, however you can buy a car without registering it or having a license so long as you don't drive on public roads.

It's the same with guns. You can't sell a hazardous gun that might blow up in your hand.

 

Looking at it at face value I'm going to say correct. Though exactly what you mean by that?

 

Exactly?

You don't care how many people die, just as long as you get to keep your precious little gun.

 

Which even with cars still kill more people accidentally than guns kill on purpose in ratio.

Agreed.

Which when you compare states with stringent training requirements and states with no training requirements there is little difference in accidents. And most gun crimes are done by those who are forbidden from even owning a gun in the first place.

It has little if any affect.

Do you have evidence of this reducing accidents and crime?

Every confiscation started with registration. That's not to say every registration leads to confiscation but it sure does help.

Why?

Misuse is already illegal. And I don't see why someone needs to lose his right to arms because of an accident. If he causes an accident he should pay for the damages out of his own pocket.

Why?

Because to my knowledge none of what you suggested actually reduces deaths by guns.

 

No, I revised my statement. I was reffering to gang related violence originally but didn't explained myself properly.

 

Or that we just have a higher crime rate than the rest of the western world. Again, Switzerland has a higher gun ownership than England and Wales yet have a lower homicide rate. Plus its incomplete to say the least to just look at who have a higher crime rate. What you should do is compare some the countries with lower crime rate before and after they implemented gun control and see if crime is all that affected when gun control took place.

 

I do read the posts.

Which again, if true then gun control isn't needed as everybody has a reducing crime rate.

It works the opposite way as well. I'm exaggerating of course but gun control advocates play on the fear that if we allow more guns then we would all die by Friday, when in fact every single case where more lax gun laws went into affect it either didn't kill everybody or in fact crime rate went down.

It does, or at least it doesn't hurt. In fact gun crimes itself are dropping also.

This is inspite of the fact that gun ownership or at least gun sales are rising.

 

Which when put in perspective those types of incidents are few and far between. I mean we have at least 400 million privately owned guns and 80 million gun owners (old stat) and at most we hear like a hundred or so of these stories per year. On the flip side gun owners are defending themselves at least 700,000 time per year.

As of now yes, but if gun ownership directly leads to higher crime and murder rates then Switzerland should be joining us at the top of the most dangerous countries. The fact is neither Switzerland nor the US rank 25th on the world's most violent countries.