How To Argue For Gun Control.

I'll concede to the fact that traffic laws do help though at this moment I can't view what I said so I'm not sure if I even made that argument. I will say however that there is no gun control law that actually reduced gun deaths.

Old ruling.

Again, old ruling.

Actually that's taken out of context. The constitution doesn't give us rights. It recognize rights already in existence.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20080627/heller

1. This is an old ruling.

2. How is registration going to prevent negligent discharge?

This sounds an awful lot like the car ruling.

They can be regulated according to what the constitution allows.

 

No, I do care but the laws gun advocates promote doesn't reduce crime and violates the constitution.

 

Can you name a gun regulation that saved lives?

 

Regulations. Lol. Just a fancy name for "preventatives". When you look at the word preventative, all it is, is like... instead of a definite 100% yes this will happen, a preventive measure just takes a percentage off the chance of happening. You could outright ban guns in a country as a regulation and yet people will still have guns and be shooting people.

 

Hairdryers in the hands of idiots are lethal.

 

It didn't do much when we're talking about crime in general.

https://oag.ca.gov/crime

And it's only going down because the national average is going down as well.

 

Usa got a gold medal....that's what you call gun control.

 

The Heller decisions states that on a federal level the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Chicago v. McDonald case shows that states cannot usurp that right. And here's a more relevant link to my original statement.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/12/13/you-dont-have-constitutional-rights/

However its still not a ruling.

What would you propose that would make guns safer than they already are?

Guns aren't dangerous when operated correctly.

The people's right to keep and bear arms is unconnected to whether he is a militia member or not.

 

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

Why do you think it irrelevant one thing is designed specifically to maim and kill the other isn’t.

Well this is a bit rich coming from the person that thought 10 in 100,000 gun related deaths was low and suggested they wouldn’t worry until it got to 30 in 100,000.

But anyway with cars as has been explained to you several times a lot of time and effort has been taken to try and reduce harm in relation to car usage, this could be done as well in relation to the harm caused by guns, but you are opposed to that – why?

Sorry but that doesn’t make sense.

A lot of things that were not designed to cause harm can cause harm (factory machinery for example) and that is why regulations have been brought in to try and reduce that harm. Ease of access to guns is clearly causing harm yet people like you oppose prudent regulation that could reduce such ham – why?

And harm reduction is harm reduction it’s not aimed just aimed at the operator that would be silly – many car regulations are about protection people from the driver (operator) from them needing to pass a test to banning drunk drivers or those with a medical condition that could make them dangerous drives to speed restrictions and traffic calming projects.

LOL the whole point about guns is they don’t take much effort or experience to be deadly (mostly to others but sometimes to the operator).
As is testified by the numerous times children have found guns and shot someone with them (sadly often killing them).
Not long ago there was the case of the ‘responsible’ pro-gun owner who was shot in the back by her four year old.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12189432/Pro-gun-activist-shot-by-her-own-son-after-boasting-of-firearm-training-on-social-media.html

 

Mac

And bicycles

It is already one of the methods used to reduce the harm that private car ownership can cause (both from accidents and to the environment) in the UK many towns are trying to limit private car by limiting where cares can go reducing roads and encouraging other modes of transport.

So what would you do to reduce harm from easy access to guns? Well we have put forward many ideas but you seem to reject them – why?

We have something similar here called a provisional licence but I’m not sure what you are trying to say? You do realize that this isn’t exactly like for like don’t you? As pointed out a car isn’t a gun and so things will be done differently.

I mean in the UK you need to have a full gun license (there is no provisional stage) before you can buy or use a gun.

*
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.

LOL what are they going to do make the gun not work if you point it at someone?
*
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.

Not sure what you mean about in ratio

But guns still cause harm and that harm could be reduced through prudent regulation, why do you oppose that?

Stringent training requirements for what cars or guns? Can you supply come statistical evidence?

To repeat - according to the FBI virtually all guns in criminal hands were bought legally in the US by American citizens. They were either stolen from the legal owner or passed on to a criminal for favour or money. It would therefore seem prudent to try and limit those ways in which criminals obtain guns

*

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?

Please back this up because all the evidence so far seems to indicate it does.

 

Mac

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

I really think you need to read the posts – post 51 – lists some gun control ideas.

All gun owners would need to pass a test of competence and responsibility to get a gun licence (part of which would be to pass a psychological evaluation)

*

Insurance would be needed to be paid up and valid.

So the owner is covered if they discharge their gin causing unwarranted damage or injury to any other person, animal or property.


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

It’s about showing due diligence for example if the accident is due to recklessness or irresponsible behavior then that person is not likely the right person to be an owner of such a lethal weapon.

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

AGAIN – according to the FBI virtually all guns in criminal hands were bought legally in the US by American citizens. They were either stolen from the legal owner or passed on to a criminal for favour or money. It would therefore seem prudent to try and limit those ways in which criminals obtain guns.

I have suggested –

Any guns would have to be presented for inspection 6 months after purchase then again one year after purchase and then every five years after that. Not presenting the gun would mean losing the owner’s gun license and being banning from owning a gun.

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

But those ideas have helped in reducing harm coming from private car ownership are you saying you prefer to do nothing and let thousands of people to die each year – why?

 

Mac

So you still think that Americans are more bloodthirsty and violent than other human beings –why?

 

Mac

But as pointed out that doesn’t seem the case in most criminal activity except the high levels of gun related homicides.

Oh this old chestnut

Have you ever been to Switzerland?

It’s a nice place with low unemployment rates, great social services and not very high inequality. In population density terms (490 per sq mile) it’s got less that the UK (650 psm) although the US is only (84).

*
Switzerland is actually second among wealthy countries in terms of annual gun deaths (0.77 per 100,000 of population in one recent smurvey, versus 2.97 in the US and just 0.07 in England and Wales) but has barely half as many guns per 100 people (45.7 versus 88.8 in the US).
*
But even this comparison gets weaker if you look at the way the Swiss keep their guns, which stems from a tradition of military service that has been considerably tightened over the years. One US study by the National Institutes of Health points out that both Switzerland and Israel (another alleged exception to the rule touted as proof that guns don’t kill) actually limit firearm ownership considerably and require permit renewal one to four times annually.

 

Mac

Again this isn’t rational as you seem to be saying you don’t care about the vast numbers still dying and that will continue to die.

 

Mac
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.

Sorry that’s silly – the fact is that me and other pro-gun control people are the ones pointing out that generally crime is falling while consistently those opposed to gun control have tried to stoke the fear as you did earlier in this thread.

it didn’t kill EVERYBODY – come on man that’s not exaggeration it’s just a dumb argument

Can you actually back this up in some way?

 

Mac

But they keep going below are just a few from April 2015 - are you saying these people should be allowed to own guns?

Someone was being chased by a dog so I shot at the dog, missed, and hit a man in the buttocks and a child in the stomach

My son said I stole his cell phone. So I shot him.

I was arguing with another man about a different shooting that occurred a week earlier. He was annoying and drunk so I shot him.

My girlfriend was arguing with another girl and called me for support. So I pulled out my gun and shot a bystander

I got into a minor traffic accident, so I shot the other driver to death in front of his family.

I sold a man some sunglasses and then he complained about them, so I shot him

My 19-year-old daughter was dating a 22-year-old guy I didn’t like, so I shot him dead. I also accidentally shot my wife at the same time.

I didn’t like the way somebody was driving, so I shot at their car and hit the one-year-old in the back seat.

I heard a noise downstairs so I started shooting. It was my wife.

Somebody parked his truck in front of my business and I didn’t like that, so I shot him.

My husband was out all night, so when he finally came home I shot him.

My daughter said a little boy pulled her hair. So I took my gun over to the boy’s house and shot his grandfather.

 

Mac

Where is that 700,000 figure from?

It’s not the discredited figure form Gary Kleck is it?

Anyway –

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense

We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

Hemenway, David. Survey research and self-defense gun use: An explanation of extreme overestimates. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1997; 87:1430-1445.
Hemenway, David. The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun uses: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events. Chance (American Statistical Association). 1997; 10:6-10.
Cook, Philip J; Ludwig, Jens; Hemenway, David. The gun debate’s new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 1997; 16:463-469.

4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal

We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. Gun use in the United States: Results from two national surveys. Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267.

5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use. We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.

Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah. The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun use: Results of a national survey. Violence and Victims. 2000; 15:257-272.

6. Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home. We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

Azrael, Deborah R; Hemenway, David. In the safety of your own home: Results from a national survey of gun use at home. Social Science and Medicine. 2000; 50:285-91.

7. Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense

We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17 years, which asked questions about gun threats against and self-defense gun use by these young people. We found that these young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense, and most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents. Males, smokers, binge drinkers, those who threatened others and whose parents were less likely to know their whereabouts were more likely both to be threatened with a gun and to use a gun in self-defense.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Gun threats against and self-defense gun use by California adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2004; 158:395-400.

8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime

Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals.
We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a “law-abiding citizen.”

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. When criminals are shot: A survey of Washington DC jail detainees. Medscape General Medicine. 2000; June 28. www.medscape.com

9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.
May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention. 2002; 8:236-238.

11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions

Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.

This article helps provide accurate information concerning self-defense gun use. It shows that many of the claims about the benefits of gun ownership are largely myths.

Hemenway D, Solnick SJ. The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007-2011. Preventive Medicine. 2015; 79: 22-27.

 

Aerianne

What’s your point?

I mean since guns are far more lethal that hairdryers then wouldn’t it be prudent to try and keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the irresponsible?