"Where a rational conversation about guns ought to start"

[Father Heathen]

In the US, the number of annual deaths due to firearms is slightly less than the number of deaths due to motor vehicle collisions. If your country had the same approach to firearms that it has to cars - i.e stringent licensing for both the people and the cars/guns, mandatory liability insurance, mandatory registration and regular inspection of every car/gun, and thousands upon thousands of professionals working full time to design and implement ways to make their use safer - this would be a tremendous change.

I'm a transportation engineer. I've dedicated my professional life to making roads safer. When it comes to guns, I mainly just gripe on the internet.

... but if it would make you feel better if I spent some time pointing out things about American roads and highways that could be improved in the name of safety, I can go on all day. Would you like me to?

By why all the fuss over guns and not alcohol or tobacco if risk and mortality are genuinely the heart of the issue? People abuse alcohol, get behind the wheel and kill people yet how many anti-gun people are also prohibitionists? What's the key difference?

 

[Alceste]

If you have to demonise your opponant to debate that speaks volumes. This is soooo typical Liberal. What really escapes me is all the Canadians who want to change the States. I really could care less what another country does so long as it does not affect my country.

Are you saying esmith is a joker? It's not slander if it's true.

I don't give a fiddler's fart about the states. It's a sinking ship. But I am in the habit of giving my opinion when asked, as are we all, or we wouldn't be here.

You know what is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo typically American right wing? To start blurting out "LIBERAL! TYPICAL! GLURBLEGLURBEL SOCIALISM! M'ERICA!!!!!" instead of actually discussing the subject matter - especially when guns enter into it. Why do you think Sunstone doesn't bother?

Were you under the impression that only Americans have guns, gun laws, and ideas relating to gun safety and gun control, and what guns should be used for? It may shock you to learn this, but Canadians have guns too, and thoughts about guns, and gun laws and so forth.

I'm pretty happy with the status quo here, though, in case you were wondering.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By why all the fuss over guns and not alcohol or tobacco if risk and mortality are genuinely the heart of the issue? People abuse alcohol, get behind the wheel and kill people yet how many anti-gun people are also prohibitionists? What's the key difference?

Do you think I'm arguing that all guns be banned?

And do you think people aren't speaking out about guns and tobacco?

 

[metis]

Who is advocating "putting guns into the hands of just any man, woman, or child"?
I mean, other than those who use this line of bull **** because they think this blatant lie helps their "argument"?

Only 30,000 gun-related deaths a year in a country with how many people?
How many guns?

We have four times the number of homicides per 100,000 than the top 20 most industrialized country, and the FBI estimates that there are roughly 300,000,000 guns in the U.S., which averages out to just under one gun for every man, woman, and child in the country.

So what is it about the gun-related numbers that gets people all fired up?
Why is there no out cry, no hyped up media attention, no call for worthless regulations over the things that cause a much higher death rate per year?

So, 30,000 gun related deaths per year is just unimportant to you, and you actually think more gun regulations actually leads to a higher death rate? I think I've seen enough of this kind of nonsense.

 

[Revoltingest]

We have four times the number of homicides per 100,000 than any other industrialized country, and the FBI estimates that there are roughly 300,000,000 guns in the U.S., which averages out to just under one gun for every man, woman, and child in the country.

This claim would require that you consider Brazil & Mexico to be non-industrialized countries.
(This is the perennial problem with statistical claims, ie, unspoken erroneous presumptions.)
I disagree, & note that they're far more violent than Americastan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newly_industrialized_country

So, 30,000 gun related deaths per year is just unimportant to you....

You have a window into his sociopathic soul?
This would be to misjudge Mestemia.

.....I think I've seen enough of this kind of nonsense.

Haven't we all...

 

[metis]

I qualified my post #84 in regards to "industrialized countries".

 

[Revoltingest]

I qualified my post #84 in regards to "industrialized countries".

Ah, you're right.
I'll slap meself since you can't reach me from there.

Who is in the top 20 list, & how is this determined?
I ask because it seems to make a statistical picture appear more extreme than other perspectives would.

 

[Father Heathen]

Do you think I'm arguing that all guns be banned?

And do you think people aren't speaking out about guns and tobacco?

I meant anti-gun people in general, especially those who desire a full ban as per the OP. To boil it down, wouldn't those who want severe restrictions/full ban on guns also want severe restrictions/full ban on alcohol and tobacco, to be logically consistant?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I meant anti-gun people in general, especially those who desire a full ban as per the OP.

What makes you think the OP wants a full ban? His post suggests he doesn't:

◉ Regulate gun ownership.
​

To boil it down, wouldn't those who want severe restrictions/full ban on guns also want severe restrictions/full ban on alcohol and tobacco, to be logically consistant?

There are already severe restrictions on alcohol and tobacco. There are plenty of places in the US where if you're walking down the street, you can't carry open liquor but you can carry a loaded handgun. There are many establishments where you can't light up a cigarette, but you can carry your gun.

Just like your car example, if guns were treated the way that alcohol or tobacco are treated now, they'd be much more heavily restricted than they are.​

 

[metis]

Here's a site where one can see the list, and I have to downsize my stat to three times but that only works if one excludes Russia: List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CMike]

Here's a site where one can see the list, and I have to downsize my stat to three times but that only works if one excludes Russia: List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those stats also assumes that those countries keep good records and statistics.

 

[metis]

Those stats also assumes that those countries keep good records and statistics.

Or that even we do. But that's really a cop-out and just an excuse to ignore that which any person attempting to look a this objectively well knows to be true, namely that the U.S. has a very high homicide rate as compared to Canada and most of the countries in western and central Europe. These are not countries prone to lie and distort their own records.

 

[McBell]

Not much doubt they would. Of course, conservatives love throwing up the complete red herring that they wouldn't prevent all firearm-related crime- which is true enough, but irrelevant. Tightening regulations is a pretty obvious win-win, and there isn't even a defensible argument against it.

Really?
How does banning a 30 round magazine prevent criminals from getting firearms?
How does banning scary looking weapons, that most are already illegal in the first place, going to stop criminals from getting firearms?


Perhaps you have some sources that show proposed legislation that will actually stop criminals from getting firearms?

 

[Apex]

We have four times the number of homicides per 100,000 than the top 20 most industrialized country, and the FBI estimates that there are roughly 300,000,000 guns in the U.S., which averages out to just under one gun for every man, woman, and child in the country.

One of my posts from a past gun thread that addressed this topic but never got a response:

Howe exactly is it "much lower" though? How should we quantify it? They are all in the low single digits. Is it really meaningfull to use language like "it is twich as high" or "three times higher" when the absolute difference is only in the range of 2-3? When you get into small numbers, saying something is twice or three times larger tends to make things sound larger than they truly are. For example, say country A has a homicide rate of 0.5, and country B has one of 1.8. This means country B has a rate 3.6 times higher than A. Does B have a problem?

I know some posters here have compared Canada's rate to the US as an example that the US has a problem. Yet Canada has a murder rate that is over two and a half times larger than Austria, and over five times higher than Iceland. Does that mean Canada has a problem?

 

[Father Heathen]

What makes you think the OP wants a full ban? His post suggests he doesn't:

And before that he said:

So here are my suggestions for a start. ◉ Repeal the second amendment

...which essentially translates into calling for a ban.

There are already severe restrictions on alcohol and tobacco.

Alcohol and tobacco are still far easier to obtain than guns.

There are plenty of places in the US where if you're walking down the street, you can't carry open liquor but you can carry a loaded handgun.

You can't walk down the street holding a gun openly. And you can carry alcohol on it as long as you're not consuming it in public.

There are many establishments where you can't light up a cigarette, but you can carry your gun.

But you can still keep a pack of cigarettes on you. And you can't just place your gun upon the table as you dine.

Just like your car example, if guns were treated the way that alcohol or tobacco are treated now, they'd be much more heavily restricted than they are.

They don't have guns on a shelf behind the cashier, where they just hand you one when asked, only checking your ID if you look way too young like they do tobacco. Nor can you simply grab a random gun off the shelf and toss it into your shopping cart like you can alcohol.

 

[Father Heathen]

I don't give a fiddler's fart about the states.

Yet oddly enough you seem to be quite emotionally invested in our culture, laws, and politics.

It's a sinking ship.

How so?

But I am in the habit of giving my opinion when asked

By who?

You know what is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo typically American right wing? To start blurting out "LIBERAL! TYPICAL! GLURBLEGLURBEL SOCIALISM! M'ERICA!!!!!" instead of actually discussing the subject matter - especially when guns enter into it. Why do you think Sunstone doesn't bother?

This is true. "Liberal" and "socialism" are tossed around like dirty insults by people who have very limited to no understanding of what the terms actually mean.

Were you under the impression that only Americans have guns, gun laws, and ideas relating to gun safety and gun control, and what guns should be used for? It may shock you to learn this, but Canadians have guns too, and thoughts about guns, and gun laws and so forth.

The difference is that no one is trashing Canada for not fitting their personal ideal. I make no judgement regarding Canada's laws, cultures, or politics unless there would happen to be a serious social injustice.

I'm pretty happy with the status quo here, though, in case you were wondering.

I don't think anyone was.

 

[dust1n]

Possible changes:

1. Figure out what has caused the dramatic reduction in homicides and other violent crimes from 1992 to 2012, and keep that up.

2. It looks like there could be a considerable reduction in gun violence if illegal guns were taken out of the picture. I couldn't find enough information to see how these guns were moving from legal buyers to illegal buyers. It's possible that changes could be made which would decrease the availability of illegal guns.

Consider that a large increase of the reduction of homicides is greatly influenced by the fact people don't die.



BALTIMORE—The number of U.S. homicides has been falling for two decades, but America has become no less violent.

Crime experts who attribute the drop in killings to better policing or an aging population fail to square the image of a more tranquil nation with this statistic: The reported number of people treated for gunshot attacks from 2001 to 2011 has grown by nearly half.

A team of medical workers treat a stabbing victim at R Adams Cowley trauma center. Melissa Golden for The Wall Street Journal

"Did everybody become a lousy shot all of a sudden? No," said Jim Pasco, executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police, a union that represents about 330,000 officers. "The potential for a victim to survive a wound is greater than it was 15 years ago."

In other words, more people in the U.S. are getting shot, but doctors have gotten better at patching them up. Improved medical care doesn't account for the entire decline in homicides but experts say it is a major factor.

Emergency-room physicians who treat victims of gunshot and knife attacks say more people survive because of the spread of hospital trauma centers—which specialize in treating severe injuries—the increased use of helicopters to ferry patients, better training of first-responders and lessons gleaned from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Our experience is we are saving many more people we didn't save even 10 years ago," said C. William Schwab, director of the Firearm and Injury Center at the University of Pennsylvania and the professor of surgery at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania.

In Medical Triumph, Homicides Fall Despite Soaring Gun Violence - WSJ.com

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And before that he said:



...which essentially translates into calling for a ban.

No, it doesn't. It just means allowing for restrictions on guns above and beyond what the Second Amendment allows.

Alcohol and tobacco are still far easier to obtain than guns.

You can't walk down the street holding a gun openly. And you can carry alcohol on it as long as you're not consuming it in public.

But you can still keep a pack of cigarettes on you. And you can't just place your gun upon the table as you dine.

I think the question here is whether smoking in public is more analogous to carrying in public or shooting in public. You've picked the more extreme - and IMO ridiculous - analogy.

 

[dust1n]

I would seriously invite folks who want to change America into a country our founding fathers would roll in their graves over.

If you want a gun free socialist society, please get the hell out of my country. Perhaps this will happen one day, but not as long as I am sucking air.

My freedoms come from God. They were endowed to me by my creator.

I believe these issues may just come down to push and shove. Oh, by the way, it should be legal to shoot butt holes who text in movie theatres. Turn your damn phone off!

How admirable a position.

 

[dawny0826]

But putting guns into the hands of just any man, woman, or child has proven to not enhance our security but, instead, has very much threatened it. 30,000 gun-related deaths per year speaks too loudly to ignore even though some prefer to do just that.

Even though there are approximately 30,000 gun related deaths per year in the US, over half comprised suicides (19,392) (as per CDC reports in 2010).

In 2010, the CDC reported that 11,078 people were murdered by firearm. More people died that year by alcohol, drug and automobile related deaths, as separate categories.

CDC - Fatal Injury Reports - WISQARS - Injury

Every criminal case doesn't look the same. Every suicide incident doesn't look the same. Placing the gun itself to the forefront as being the instrument of "blame" is asinine to me, when, I'm confident that with some of these murder cases, those who intended to harm another would have used any available method to do so if they didn't have a gun as I'm sure those determined to take their own lives would have done so, whether they had a firearm or not.

We don't have accurate enough statistical data to depict how USEFUL gun brandishment has been in deterring criminal activity.

Defensive gun use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yet, several studies have suggested that between 70%-90% of criminals were deterred from committing a crime, just through brandishment of a weapon - no injury, no death.

The media demonizes firearms, examining the negative statistics and media portrayals, without really looking at the firearm and injury statistics, evaluating what they comprise and comparing them to other ways that people are dying, annually.