When I hear "demographics", I think of statistics like age, income, and gender distribution, not things like culture and traditions.
Think of demographics in terms of sales. Age, income and gender influence culture. Certain products are targeted to specific demographics, for greater profitability. It's all relative.
The annual number of firearm deaths in the US (2010: 31,672*) is only slightly less than the number of motor vehicle collision deaths (2010: 33,657*). It's a massive number by any rational measure.
Source:
NCHS - 404 Error - Resource Not Available
I'm not getting the numbers to add up to 31,672, but, my calculations are close enough, so I suppose its moot.
19,392 people comitted suicide using firearms
11,078 people were murdered by firearm
606 people died via
accidental discharge of firearms
I still contend that we are NOT killing each other off via firearm in massive numbers, when considering population and comparing murder statistics by firearm to that of other non-health related ways to go.
I'm certainly not undermining the value of anyone's life. The suicide statistics were quite sobering to me. In terms of using guns with the intention of
KILLING other people, the numbers are not nearly as inflated as projected.
Without considering intent, our cars are still kiling us faster. Beer and drugs are kiling us in greater numbers than we are using guns to kill each other.
Even the number of accidental deaths by firearm are much lower than what anti-gun activists project.
And yes, that's how we approach car use: we don't try to make roads entirely risk-free (since this is impossible); we try to identify factors that are especially risky and work to either eliminate them or reduce their associated risk.
And is this not what we attempt to accomplish via the establishment of certain criteria to purchase a gun including background checks, registration, mandatory firearm education (in some cases) and additional criteria and education for obtaining a conceal and carry permit?
If we were to be honest and apply this logic thoroughly, we would ban alcohol (because it's not necessary) or install breathalizers (excuse my spelling) in all vehicles. Perhaps we'd save 25,000+ lives in the process.
But, the problem with doing this, unfortunately, is that we infringe upon the rights of the MAJORITY who are obviously not abusing alcohol and wouldn't place themselves in a position to where they would harm themselves and others willingly.
What part of that spectrum isn't reflected in those three categories?
It doesn't really matter. I'm not of the opinion that the government has the right to place people on a spectrum based upon assumptions and to legally justify discrimination.
You insinuated that law-abiding gun owners are "safe". If those laws are adequate, this implies that, except for instances of actual self-defense, when someone is hurt or killed by a firearm, some sort of law or rule has been broken.
I've said that there's a significant statistic of gun owners who did not in 2012 utilize their guns to
MURDER other people. I don't believe that I've used the words "safe" when referring to gun ownership, although I'm not opposed to using such a term to describe men like my father, father in law and brother in laws, all who own multiple guns and are law abiding when it comes to their firearms.
Yes, these are "safe" men. And I use this term to describe a variety of characteristics. I know that any one of them would protect my family if ever in the situation where such an act was necessary.
I shot a gun for the first time with my husband and brother in law over the summer and was impressed by their careful handling and ability to instruct. I never felt unsafe. Before I shot the gun, I was instructed thoroughly as to what I needed to do protect myself from recoil.
Education is powerful. When you understand the raw reality of something - it's not frightening anymore. I think that there are a hell of a lot of Americans who are afraid of guns. I'm not afraid of guns. I'm frightened by stupid, uncaring people.
The alternative is that the rules are inadequate, in which case greater regulation is required.
Tell me, what, specifically, if this were the case would need to be changed. Define what "greater regulation" would entail.
I don't think your assessment of your country's legal perspective is correct. Law-abiding American citizens are restricted in all sorts of ways. Heck - you're even required to show ID to buy Sudafed.
I think I'm more aware of our legal perspective than you give me credit for. Seriously, don't belittle my intelligence and experience when I've been living here for 35 years.
I'm not in opposition to a system of criteria, background check and screening for prospective gun owners. I'm not in opposition to a system that requires that guns be registered, but, only on the local most level of government, not on the federal level and only for the purpose of tracking gun ownership from person to person. I'm not in opposition to permits and mandatory education.
I don't have a problem with required disclosure of mental health conditions as long as people are not automatically ruled out for gun ownership without additional inverviewing and inspect, all with the consent of the prospective owner.
The federal government has no right to stigmatize and discriminate against those who may have a mental health condition as not all mental health conditions yield crazy.
For instance, you mentioned sex offenders. I have my vulnerable sector screening (the term here for the super background check needed to work with kids), so it's established as well as can be that I've never been convicted or even charged of any offense that might even hint at me being a threat to children, but despite this, the organization I volunteer with still forbids volunteers from being alone with children.
And from liability and safety perspectives, these are good business practices.
Our organization background checks too and does not allow those without background checks in any over-night situations. Further, they cannot work with children.
And when I get reimbursed for expenses, I have to provide receipts. Our treasurer doesn't just take my word for what I spent, despite the fact I've never been so much as charged in any sort of theft or fraud.
I wasn't disputing these types of practices.
I was disputing the notion of banning someone from owning a gun because it's
merely suspected or assumed that such person may not be responsible or capable. That's the type of legislation that some are trying to push and that troubles me.
I'm all for the full application and background check process. I think everyone with a firearm should be educated on how to use it and I even think that education for family is a good idea. Precuationary and safety education is so important in all aspects.
I do think if we approached gun ownership from this type of perspective, allowing the states the ability to establish programs that further encourage competency and safety - we'd see better results, statistically, at least in terms of lowering the number of deaths due to accidental discharge.
You'll find similar approaches in all sorts of other contexts. Just because someone hasn't been identified as a criminal doesn't mean we give them completely unqualified trust.
That doesn't yield "license" to discriminate either. As a Libertarian, my question is just how much regulation would you propose and how much screening do you propose? Whether you're comfortable with the concept of 75-100 million Americans owning guns or not, that's a right that we have and I believe it's worth standing firm for.
Regulation is important but to an extent. There has to be balance between upholding rights in a non discriminatory manner while encouraging responsible gun ownership.
