Is that "the rate of gun misuse while on duty", or are you comparing two vastly different things?
Gun Control
- Thread starter larryselbows
- Start date
Is that "the rate of gun misuse while on duty", or are you comparing two vastly different things?
If the number of deaths from SUVs in cases of accident/suicide/domestic abuse climbs higher than the number of successful uses of an SUV, we probably will.
If you replace "UN" with "EU", then yes, I look forward to when our culture is enlightened enough to realize that guns aren't necessary for personal peace and security, and that arming a populace results more in escalation than safety. The government can always afford better guns. Putting guns in the hands of the populace doesn't prevent tyranny (see any number of current countries for confirmation on that score). Tyranny is accepted, or not, as a matter of culture.
Why does the universe being mechanical make it not fun?
You mean, as opposed to the conclusion that fewer gun owners would be safer than more gun owners?
Some people think that any non-mammal meat tastes like chicken.
As opposed to you telling me what I can and cannot do?
Maybe it does taste like chicken to them.
Yep. That hasn't been the point since word 1. You can go ahead and claim that it's what you have been saying all along, but it isn't, so I guess we're at an impasse.
You're the recess lady at the elementary school. There has been an outbreak of fights on the playground. You've decided that all the A students need to sit quietly in at their desks during recess. One of those overachievers may suddenly snap and start a brawl. Less children on the playground = less chance of a fight. Except that all the surly kids, who start the fights, are still out at recess. Bravo.
I'll say this one more time, and you can disregard it yet again: A law that is purposely constructed to set limitations ONLY on those who already abide by the rules DOES NOT increase safety.
Edit:
I thought about it for a few minutes and decided I wanted to add this; Brow, you and I can agree on one thing - if nobody had guns, we wouldn't have gun violence. But the notion that eliminating any gun from any situation automatically makes that situation safer is just not correct. You would have to eliminate every gun from every situation. Do you think it's merely coincidence that the vast majority of mass shootings happen in "gun-free" zones? 2nd amendment completely aside, getting the ball rolling by disarming law abiding people is as ***-backwards an approach as you could take.
Last edited:
Here is a fairly complete discussion about what is known currently about gun violence.
https://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/
It is a little lengthly.
But the key points is that murder rate and number of gun-murders has gone down for 3 straight years.
It is a point of contention if increasing the number of concealed carry citizen reduces the overall crime level.
Read all the details if you want an article linked to research papers.
https://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/
It is a little lengthly.
But the key points is that murder rate and number of gun-murders has gone down for 3 straight years.
It is a point of contention if increasing the number of concealed carry citizen reduces the overall crime level.
Read all the details if you want an article linked to research papers.
Then shouldn't that same metric be used for guns? The successful uses of guns far, far, far outweighs the accidnet/suicide/domestic abuse uses of guns.
from the article you linked:
So let me make sure I'm reading this correctly... if we tighten the restrictions on CCW holders, suicides will cease to occur. Is that about right?
As I start reading the article one thing caught my attention. This boogeyman known as the "gun show loop-hole." First, there is not a "gun show loop-hole." The "loop-hole," if you want to call it that, is that a private citizen can sell his or her privately owned guns to another private citizen without running the instant background check.
I've been to a couple gun shows. I'm not a fan. I tried buying my first gun at a gun show because I was led to believe the prices were fantastic and there was no need for a background check. When I tried to purchase a used 10/22 (pretty standard beginner rifle) for what new ones were going for from a vendor who was also a FFL holder who owned a gun store I was presented with the standard background check form. But hey wait, I'm at a gun show. This is a wild west free for all isn't it? The answer is that it is not a free for all at all. As far as I could tell every seller at the gun show was a FFL holder (federal firearm licence, basically someone allowed to sell guns commercially) and any FFL holder who sells a gun has to run the background check, even at a gun show! The only people who can sell guns at a gun show without running a background check are private citizens who rent a booth at a gun show to sell their privately owned guns to other private citizens for the purchasers own personal use. So just like I could sell my guns on KSL without running a background check I could conceivably rent a booth at a gun show and do the same thing. Only, I didn't see any booths where people were selling their personal stockpile of guns. Not one.
So this "gun show loop-hole" is yet another red herring in the gun debate.
I'm all for requiring background checks for all gun sales at all gun shows. For one, I don't think it changes anything because from my experience all gun sales at gun shows are from an FFL holder to a customer and require a background check according to current law. For another, if my experience was not typical I'm fine with making anyone who sets up a booth at a gun show do background checks on their customers, because by virtue of renting space at a gun show with the intent of selling guns you are not really a private citizen selling a gun to another private citizen. So, you should have to follow the same law that any other commercial firearms sells have to follow.
But that's not what closing the "gun show loop-hole means." What it means is requiring all transfers of gun ownership, even from father to son, neighbor to neighbor, KSL user to KSL user, to go to a FFL holder, pay them a fee for their service, pay for the background check and have the purchaser pass the background check before a gun can change hands. If that's something people think is going to help then I can get behind that. It's a PITA in certain cases and without actual gun registration it's essentially unenforceable, but hey let's pass some laws and pat ourselves on the back for doing something!
I've been to a couple gun shows. I'm not a fan. I tried buying my first gun at a gun show because I was led to believe the prices were fantastic and there was no need for a background check. When I tried to purchase a used 10/22 (pretty standard beginner rifle) for what new ones were going for from a vendor who was also a FFL holder who owned a gun store I was presented with the standard background check form. But hey wait, I'm at a gun show. This is a wild west free for all isn't it? The answer is that it is not a free for all at all. As far as I could tell every seller at the gun show was a FFL holder (federal firearm licence, basically someone allowed to sell guns commercially) and any FFL holder who sells a gun has to run the background check, even at a gun show! The only people who can sell guns at a gun show without running a background check are private citizens who rent a booth at a gun show to sell their privately owned guns to other private citizens for the purchasers own personal use. So just like I could sell my guns on KSL without running a background check I could conceivably rent a booth at a gun show and do the same thing. Only, I didn't see any booths where people were selling their personal stockpile of guns. Not one.
So this "gun show loop-hole" is yet another red herring in the gun debate.
I'm all for requiring background checks for all gun sales at all gun shows. For one, I don't think it changes anything because from my experience all gun sales at gun shows are from an FFL holder to a customer and require a background check according to current law. For another, if my experience was not typical I'm fine with making anyone who sets up a booth at a gun show do background checks on their customers, because by virtue of renting space at a gun show with the intent of selling guns you are not really a private citizen selling a gun to another private citizen. So, you should have to follow the same law that any other commercial firearms sells have to follow.
But that's not what closing the "gun show loop-hole means." What it means is requiring all transfers of gun ownership, even from father to son, neighbor to neighbor, KSL user to KSL user, to go to a FFL holder, pay them a fee for their service, pay for the background check and have the purchaser pass the background check before a gun can change hands. If that's something people think is going to help then I can get behind that. It's a PITA in certain cases and without actual gun registration it's essentially unenforceable, but hey let's pass some laws and pat ourselves on the back for doing something!
I read that half of gun deaths in the U.S. are from suicides. Does anyone know if that's a legit stat? I don't think those cases should be included in the numbers used in the gun debate unless people really want to argue about how to prevent suicides and think taking away gun rights is justified on the grounds of reducing suicide, which I don't think will fly.
I agree. If they are going to kill themselves there are plenty of other painless methods. Pills, turning on your car ina closed garage, poison...
I think guns are a more surefire (pardon the pun) method, but that's not a gun control argument in my opinion. I'm typically not in favor of laws that protect people from themselves and that's exactly what gun control to prevent suicides would be. So unless gun control advocates explicitly state that in part their goals are to get guns away from people so they don't use them to kill themselves then those numbers should be excluded from any honest debate on gun control.
I also think all legitimate self-defense uses that result in the death of the attacker should be excluded.
I also think they should break it down according to deaths from legally obtained firearms used by their rightful owners vs illegally obtained firearms. And it should go further and specify if the gun death was a result of a confrontation between two criminals, where the only victims were criminals who were actively engaged in criminal activity.
I think the numbers would start to look a lot different and we could make some meaningful decisions based on reality.
But I think this current push is focused on diminishing America's gun culture, not in reducing mass shootings or gun crime in general. One Brow has expressed that ideology time and time again: less guns = less gun death. And that's the bottom line. He doesn't care if many of those gun deaths are suicides, or gang vs gang shootings using illegally obtained and possessed firearms. Eventually, by arbitrarily reducing legal gun ownership, illegal gun usage will fall.
And I thought liberals didn't believe in trickle-down economics.
I missed this earlier.
YES! Guns are used constantly to deescalate potentially dangerous situations. Gun control advocates don't want to acknowledge this fact. But a gun produced in the face (not literally "in the face") of someone who is trying to use physical force in a situation usually causes that person to reassess what they're doing. Now, this is not to be used willy-nilly anytime you think someone is getting out of line, but if someone is threatening you or your family with physical violence and you fear for life and limb it is completely legitimate to brandish a firearm in order to let them know you are not the victim he is looking for. And this is how guns are used more than 95% of the time!
I was being facetious in my comment, but yeah... every source I've checked indicates that more than half (right around 60%) of all gun deaths are suicides.
To follow up, I went to the CDC website and browsed their death stats for 2010.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2010_release.pdf
It broke down like this:
Total gun deaths: 31,672
Gun homicides: 11,078
Gun suicides: 19, 392
Other*: 1,202
This breaks down roughly as; suicide 61%, homicide 35%, other 4%. That means almost 2/3 of all gun deaths are self inflicted.
*Other is defined as Unintentional, Legal Intervention/War, and Undetermined.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2010_release.pdf
It broke down like this:
Total gun deaths: 31,672
Gun homicides: 11,078
Gun suicides: 19, 392
Other*: 1,202
This breaks down roughly as; suicide 61%, homicide 35%, other 4%. That means almost 2/3 of all gun deaths are self inflicted.
*Other is defined as Unintentional, Legal Intervention/War, and Undetermined.
The cry of the unenlightened individualist. What's really ironic is that, if I thought every gun owner would act as responsibly as you describe yourself acting, I would see no need for gun control at all. The reason you would not be allowed to do, or not do things like carry on a university, is completely unfair to you.
Since I don't know what you mean by "all along", and I have had different points at different times in this thread, I only am making a claim about this particular small section of the discussion since the refusal to allowed concealed carry on universities was brought up.
That would be here:
https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?13575-Gun-Control&p=488590&viewfull=1#post488590
I feel I was very clear that I was objecting to a bad argument, specifically the dichotomy that was being put forth.
As one of the former A students who was also one of the surly kids at times, I find your ableist story to be the perfect example of the type of dichotomy that I was complaining about in the post I linked to. You can't divide the kids into separate groups of "A students" and "surly kids". If you reverse that, and allow only the A students onto the playground, you'll still get fights.
I'll offer the same replay: laws the limit access have an effect on everyone, even those who are law-abiding; also, people who are law-abiding 99% of the time will still have access to guns in the other 1%.
I agree there is no quick solution to the issue of mass shootings; I have said that before in this thread.