How To Argue For Gun Control.

This is sooo dumb

Somebody parked his truck in front of my business, so stabbed him

My husband was out all night, so I bludgeoned him with a hammer

I sold a man some sunglasses who complained about them, so I strangled him

I didn't like the way the other car was driving, so I ran them off the road and into a tree

My 19 year old daughter was dating a 22 year old I didn't like, so put cyanide in his drink

I got into a minor accident, so beat the guy to death with a crowbar in front of his family

My son said I stole his cell phone, so I ran him over

My girlfriend was arguing with another girl and called me for support. So I assaulted the wrong bystander

 

6

Firearm-related deaths rate per 100,000 population.

US –2011 - 10.3
England and Wales – 0.22
France - 3.00
Germany – 1.10
Switzerland - 3.04

Homicides by any method per 100.000

US - 2011: 5.1
England and Wales - 1.03
France : 1.2
Germany 0.8
Switzerland 0.57

Gun related homicides per 100,000

US 2011: 3.6
England and Wales: 0.06
France - 0.22
Germany - 0.2
Switzerland 0.16


But as pointed out many times and expalined at lenght guns are much more effective at killing and maiming than other hand weapons.

 

What those homicide stats in the US aren't telling you, 60% of those deaths are from suicides,, so that information is bogus!

 

Like I said, a death is a death either way. There are 80 million gun owners, 400 million privately owned guns, and only 13,000 homicides if we exclude suicides which makes up 60% of all gun related deaths. In contrast there are 190 million licensed drivers, over 200 million registered cars, and 33,000 fatal car accidents. Now just taking owners vs death rate the chances of a gun owner of dying from a gun is 1 in 6153. The chance of a car owner dying from a car accident is 1 in 5757. That means there's roughly a .09% increase of dying from a car than dying from a gun. Now for ever gun used in a homicide 30,769 wasn't. For every car involved in a fatal car accident 6,000 wasn't. That means cars are five times more likely to kill than guns. The reason I rounded the cars is because I forgot how many are out there exactly, but sufice it to say that you are after the wrong problem.

Ok?

I oppose useless, unconstitutional laws that only harm the law abiding citizen. If you can come up with a law that is constitutional and actually works I'll be fully behind it.

In other words you can't and shouldn't make laws against something that is only dangerous when used in an illegal or reckless matter. You can't legislate responsibility.

To which I agree. If it isn't intended to cause harm then make as safe as possible to the operator.

Criminals get guns illegally whether by stealing or by straw purchase. Please name a law that'll stop both.

Which really doesn't prevent such banned people from breaking the law and driving anyway.

Effort as in will. I willfully point a loaded gun at you and pull the trigger. Driving along a road as a child dart across it and you hitting him requires no pre-thought.

More children die from swimming pools. And a lot stats include "children" up to the age of 18 to boost there stats. Some even go up to 21.

As sad as that is its a rare case and could've been prevented had the mother either carried on her person or not have the purse within range of the four year old.

 

I'll deal with the rest tomorrow. If you don't see a reply then make a comment and it'll alert my email.

 

Cybenator

Problem is you are looking at total fiearms deaths not homicides you (and Mac) really need to read the posts.

Anyway its simply a matter of subtraction - if you don’t know what that it is – it’s taking one number from another –

To get the figure for none homicide rates (suicides and accidents etc) you only need to take - Firearm-related deaths rate per 100,000 population US –2011 - 10.3 from gun related homicides per 100,000 US 2011: 3.6

If that’s too difficult for you the answer is - 6.7

Can you imagine what that would be in percentage terms?

Hey isn’t math great

 

Mac

.

Ok so ‘a death is a death either way’ so you agree regulation is good to reduce the possibility of been killed or injured by cars but don’t want to do anything to try and bring down the number of gun related deaths and injuries – why?

OK followed by a question mark?

Are you saying that you don’t agree with what you said earlier in that you thought 10 in 100,000 gun related deaths was low and suggesting you wouldn’t worry until it got to 30 in 100,000.

In what way would the ideas suggested above ‘harm’ law abiding citizens?

Do you want to try and limit the possibility of guns falling into the hands of the criminal and irresponsible?

But you can try and lessen harm by making it harder for the criminal and irresponsible from getting their hands on such lethal weapons – why do you seem opposed to that?

This doesn’t seem to make sense.

You seem to be saying ‘but if it is designed to cause harm do nothing’ why?

And what about the safety of non-operators?

Please read the posts there is a list of suggestions post 51

It’s about reducing the possibilities of harm as pointed out regulations having reduced the possibilities of harm by cars and people are working on further reducing the possibilities.

You seem to be saying you don’t want to reduce the harm that comes from ease of access to guns in your society and I’m wondering why?

But the whole point is to try and lessen harm, why are you opposed to that in relation to guns?

But as pointed out it can be literally child’s play to point a loaded gun at someone and pull the trigger.

Not talking about numbers dying in different ways (although I’d try and reduce harm from swimming pools, in the uk all public pools have lifeguards etc to limit the risks).

But we were talking about the fact that children can and do easily shoot others that it doesn’t take them or others much effort.

Anyway again you seem not to care about these gun related deaths one moment you say ‘a death is a death either way’ the next you seem to be saying that such child shootings ad deaths are ‘rare’ so can be dismissed as sad but not important enough to do anything about.

The tragedy of children killed accidentally by guns in the US is laid bare in new research that shows that as many as 100 boys and girls aged 14 and under are dying each year, substantially more than federal statistics have previously suggested.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/25/us-accidental-gun-deaths-100-children-yearly

Yes and a responsible gun owner should have taken precautions – the thing is that she was supposedly a responsible gun owner who had a facebook page dedicated to promoting gun ownership called “Jamie Gilt for Gun Sense” (which seems to have been taken down).

BUT as seen above many gun owners don’t seem to treat guns responsibly at all, they resort to them for rather trivial matters and petty squabbles.

So I wonder why you seem so opposed to prudent gun regulation.

 

I do know this, if the Democrats would stop shooting and or killing people, gun violence would drop close to 70%.

 

Sorry I'm late. Still rather busy. If I can't get to the replies today I'll try tomorrow.

 

Mac

No rush I’m away from the forum for a couple of weeks or so – take your time do the research and I’ll reply when I get back.

Yours

balbus

 

So in essence you guys ARE banning cars.

Because they don't work and/or unconstitutional. What I would propose is have harder punishments for crimes committed with guns. I would argue that such crimes should be a capital crime because the point of having a gun while committing a crime is "if you don't do what I say then I'm going to kill you". As for accident prevention, more programs to make people aware on how to store guns safely. Have gun safety and shooting classes in schools. Most children who would play with guns do so because they have been forbidden to them and a "forbidden fruit" syndrome kicks in. Give the child the ability to handle and shoot guns under supervision and for the most part you'll drastically decrease accidents.

Exactly. Car laws can't automatically be applied to gun laws.

Here in the US all you have to do to buy from a gun store is pass a background check which is still rather useless. Either the criminal will straw purchase it, steal it, or he may not be a criminal at the time of the purchase and commit a future crime.

Which as you said, cars and guns are two different things.

Nothing, because people need and use guns for self defense. It's the price we pay for freedom.

And your point?

For example, say that more people die from guns than by cars, but if guns outnumber cars then you must consider how many guns there are and how many are used to kill vs how many cars there are and how many have been involved in a fatal accident.

Like I said, I oppose useless unconstitutional laws that only harms the law abiding citizens.

For guns. For example New York has a lengthy complex process in order to carry a gun while right next door in Vermont there is no permit needed to carry whatsoever. Yet you don't see a spike in accidental shootings in Vermont compared to New York. In fact many people who have a CCW shoot better than police. Police rarely train with there weapons because its given to them. CCW holders have an investment in there training being that its from their own pocket and they don't have backup on their radios.

And to repeat, the same is true with any item used in a crime. What's your point?

 

The CDC did a study and found out that there is no gun control law that actually worked.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

 

It was only a list. It didn't had any evidence of the effectiveness of the proposals. So I ask again, what evidence do you have that would reduce crime.

While I'm not against insurance, I am against mandatory insurance. In fact insurance raises prices. It did with the medical field.

If it is by recklessness then he should pay for the damages, taking away his rights doesn't really do anything. Plenty of people who forbidden from owning a gun still have one.

Again, the same can be said with any item used in a crime.

Why?

No, I'm saying when applied to guns it don't work.

 

No, when compared to the rest of the western world we have more gangs and gang related crimes. Mexico has more gangs than us and the Middle East has its own problems. Does England and Wales have the same amount of gangs as us?

 

Which is falling along with other crimes.

Thank you for making my point. It's not the guns but the culture and economics.

 

How is that connected to my statement? My point is if global crime rates are going down then it isn't due to gun control. It's due to something else.

 

Oh? When Florida passed its shall issue law the gun control advocates were the ones saying Florida will turn into a Wild West state with road rage becoming more deadly. It was the gun control advocates who on this very forum said that by Texas passing the law allowing guns on campuses drunk parties will become deadly. It's been the same for every law relaxing gun control. And we gun advocates have been the ones pointing out that gun sales are rising while gun crimes are dropping.

I believe I did.