Perhaps. But the case to restrict it is not made based on "what ifs" and "maybes".
Gun Control
- Thread starter larryselbows
- Start date
Perhaps. But the case to restrict it is not made based on "what ifs" and "maybes".
I disagree on requiring insurance. Just becasue a bad idea passed before is not a good excuse to pass another.
So it is an attempt to deter non criminals?
We already have agreed upon laws protecting us from gun retailers selling us harmful products just as we have them for restaurants and beef processers.. Are any of your dozen or so ideas analogous to gun ownership?
No but you were speaking rhetorically.
What do you feel I am overlooking. Since you asked me for evidence below, where is yours?
Let's look into the data here:
https://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf
From what I can tell, they are dividing up the results of an attack with a weapon into four categories, and only latter three are used on many of the tables (homicide, serious injury, minor injury, and no injury). On the tables using the latter three, in the 8,896,460 crimes where the victims survived, firearms are used in 9.5% of the assaults, while sharp objects 6.4% (Table 2), yet attack from sharper objects have a much higher percentage of injuries (Table 8), at 27.7%, versus 15.0% from a gun. By contrast, when it comes to homicides, guns account for 70.1% of the 17,822 deaths, sharp objects 13.5%.
Combining the counts into 8,914,282 attacks, guns account for 9.48% of the crimes, and death by gunshot occurs in 1.477% of the crimes where a gun is used. By contrast, sharp objects occur in 6.4% of the crimes, and death occurs in 0.423% of the crimes. That means a crime with a gun is about 2.5 more times likely to end with a death than a crime with a sharp weapon. By contrast, the percentage of non-lethal injuries are much higher for attacks with sharp weapons (this also holds for blunt objects and other types of assaults).
Now, I'm not claiming the results go strictly across to suicide, nor I have not been able to find similar statistics for suicide. However, given the far greater lethality of guns during crimes, I think the mere even split (half of the gun suicides would have been unsuccessful if another means was used) I put into my estimate was more than fair.
I agree. It needs to be based on actual, aggregate data.
You don't think drivers should be required to carry car insurance?
My question was designed to indicate deterrence was not a goal (at least, for me, not a realistic goal in any gun control policy). That applies to both groups.
Depends upon the idea being discussed, wouldn't you say? For example, if the idea under discussion is "I have a right to behave however I want as long as no immediate or intentional harm results", then the analogy works fairly well. It works less well for other ideas.
Not at all. Have I ever called you stupid? To the contrary, I have commented (numerous times) that I consider you one of the smartest people on the board. I stand by that, but you have a habit of over-thinking other people's comments. You need to settle for face value sometimes.
Isn't it annoying when someone twists your words?
Which overall to my eyes, from what I have seen does not support things like an AWB.
You just said insurance. I had assumed you were referring to health insurance.
Then what is the goal? Because it will do one of two things:
1. act as a deterent to law abiding citizens
or
2. turn them into criminals.
On this board I'd say 70% of the time. Very many direct, plain spoken (such as myself) posters on here.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Is "not reporting a stolen gun" a problem that occurs often?
The second one is a damn stupid requirement if you have a gun for self defense...which is the reason for the right in the first place.
Although you rarely if ever take an actual position or advocate for specifics (a convenient way to deny that you are against something eh?), the benefits of gun ownership are clearly lacking in your analysis of (attack on) guns. Your sole focus has been on victims for 50 straight pages without giving the tiniest recognition to the other side of the coin.
Basically, it's a "you take a position so I can chisel out the tiniest specks of dust for 82 pages while playing naive of the actual granite statue from which they came" tactic. That's why I've mostly stayed out of it, and also why many like myself have gone from an attitude of considering new regulations to saying screw that slippery slope there's no pleasing the anti-gun crowd.
And that's why gun fanatics are buying up everything, which makes guns even more entrenched, which does nothing but work against those who prefer stricter gun regulations.
At the end of the day, it's pretty damn funny how going overboard has backfired on the anti-2nd amendment crowd.
You mean the argument that, potentially, anyone could act irrationally, so the best strategy to employ is to impose stringent limits on those who will most likely use guns responsibly, for personal defense or to diffuse a dangerous situation?
Yeah. It's brilliant.
The notion that eliminating any gun from any situation will automatically make that situation better/safer is flat out incorrect.
No. I agree with his statement that most who text and drive will not get killed doing so, or kill others. Off the top of my head, I don't recall the other specific behaviors he mentioned. Anyhow, I was agreeing with the concept that something harmful should not necessarily be allowed to occur without any regulation or restriction simply because harm does not ALWAYS result.
I interpreted his statement to mean that it is OK to restrict a behavior, such as texting while driving, even though many who do it will not cause any harm while doing it. The fact that many can do something without causing harm to occur does not mean that it should be completely unregulated. I agreed with that.
So to the question of gun owners, the fact that the majority of them are responsible people whose guns will cause no harm is not a reason for me to say that there should be no regulations regarding the owning of guns. The argument opposing gun regulation based on the idea that "most gun owners are law-abiding citizens" is not a convincing one for me.