Gun Control 5

[Horza]

yeah, doubtful that there are internment camps for registered firearmers.

the objection based on paranoia just makes the case for building internment sanitaria for psychiatric treatment, though.

Whereby this future regime would be jailing Robin Hill with her full support, given past statements on the mentally ill. Quelle paradox!

[Fragile Bird]

Back to statistics. There are no firm numbers on how many people in the USA own guns because, ta-da, it's not tracked anywhere.

Best guesses from US Census numbers and GSS surveys - General Social Survey, conducted by the University of Chicago - is that between 70 million and 80 million people in the US own guns.

Article: http://www.guardian....nership-us-data

Here's a response to that question using material from the NRA, information the NRA site no longer provides:

Privately owned firearms in the U.S.: Approaching 300 million, including nearly 100 million handguns. The number of firearms rises over 4 million annually.

Gun owners in the U.S.: 70-80 million; 40-45 million own handguns

American households that have firearms: 40-45%

Hunting licenses sold annually: 14.5 million

NRA State Associations and Local Clubs: 12,000

NRA Target Shooting Tournaments annually: 11,000

NRA Certified Instructors: 73,000

Number of Individuals Attending an NRA Firearm Course Annually: Over 800,000

NRA Law Enforcement Firearm Instructors: 12,000

Posted: 1/20/2011 12:00:00 AM

Source(s):

NRA http://www.NRAILA.or...Sheets/…

So, going back to the comment about 259 million guns not being used, if there are so many multiple gun owning owners, it's unlikely they would have used 3 guns at a time.

[Res ipsa loquitur]

And how many more tragedies does our nation have to go through before it realizes that American citizens cannot handle guns responsibly and that furthermore, the private ownership of guns is a clear and present danger to our nation?

That is only slightly hyperbolic, given the number of Americans killed through gun violence every day. And it is undeniable that the prevelance of guns in our society contributes substantially to this violence. The only thing that makes sense is to overturn the 2nd amendment and gradually eliminate guns from our nation. Not that I hold much hope that that will ever happen.

Except given the numbers, it is a very small number killed by gun violence, or even victimized by gun crime. Stats show that about 12,000 people were killed, about 450,000 or so victims of a crime where a gun was used. 450,000 out of over 300,000,000 guns is a VERY small percentage. In fact, 450,000 is .00015% of 300,000,000. You are saying guns that are used in crimes that construe far less than 1% of the total population of guns means guns are a clear and present danger? I think not. I think the numbers show that MOST guns never are misused. Stats show that guns in a home increase the likelihood of violence? Far less than one percent of guns are used in crimes....so you are worried about raising it to a slightly higher less than one percent? That makes no sense to me based on this that you think guns are a severe danger at all.

Nope. A gun kills. That's what its for. The other things you list are just secondary consequences of the gun's killing power. It can't fix anything. It just breaks things. It may be able to protect you (something statistically debatable), but only by killing or threatening to kill someone else. If you own a gun and think the mere sight of it will stop your attacker cold, you shouldn't own a gun.

If you think this is how you're supposed to operate a firearm, you're not a responsible gun owner at all.

This comparison is flawed at best, farcical at worse. The primary purpose of a car isn't to kill. It takes people from one place to another. Transportation and murder are not the same. When you operate a gun successfully, you will have shot something and destroyed it. That is the exact opposite of operating a car successfully.

The mere sight of guns HAS waded off attackers. Its also reasonable to shoot to wound and NOT kill if it can be avoided, I believe. The primary purpose of a gun is not to kill. The purpose of the gun is to protect, and when guns are used properly, lives can be saved.

It's perhaps petty to point out, but I'm pretty sure neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights date to 1776. Although, to be fair the English Bill of Rights did contain a provision rescinding attempts by James II to disarm Protestants, so the comparison might be better made to the late 17th century.

I think it goes without saying that most people in 1776 would not have anticipated specific technological advancements.

That is true, they would not know that penicillin would be invented in the 1940s. BUT its also absurd to believe they would not know and realize technology advances over time. They had seen it in their day, and of course they would know that even if they did not know the specific details, technology would advance. And the 2nd amendment reflects that, as its not limited to a specific ordinance that was the height of progress then, but not later.

I'm currently trying to find the statistics, because I have seen them before, but the homicide figure barely touches the surface and the statement "259,987,368 killed no one" is silly. If you want to talk about people killed by guns you can't leave out suicides, which bumps the number up to, IIRC, something like 30,000 deaths per year. And I believe I saw a number of 100,000 people wounded every year.

Here is a one year old article on the fact about 20,000 children a year are shot: http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=14741514

535 accidental gun deaths in 2006. Let us say 20,000 kids are shot....and that 535 die. Statistically given the numbers of guns, the percentage of guns that kill are far far less than 1% of the guns that are owned in the USA

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FB,

As respectfully as possible I've never understood the inclusion of suicides because if someone really wants to kill themselves the presense or absence of a firearm is not going to stop them.

ETA:

I don't have a problem with registration because the most basic right held by citizens in the US is predicated upon registration, the right to vote.

[Fragile Bird]

535 accidental gun deaths in 2006. Let us say 20,000 kids are shot....and that 535 die. Statistically given the numbers of guns, the percentage of guns that kill are far far less than 1% of the guns that are owned in the USA

And so why are all these people buying guns? To protect themselves. Yup. Sucked in by marketing and fear mongering.

And the number is 30,000 people a year die, not 535. The suicide statistics, 38,000 a year kill themselves, half by guns.

FB,

As respectfully as possible I've never understood the inclusion of suicides because if someone really wants to kill themselves the presense or absence of a firearm is not going to stop them.

Go back to the Harvard link I provided, and you'll see that access to guns means higher suicide numbers. Ser Scott, I think studies and articles have been quoted numerous times discussing the fact that in places where more guns are available, more suicides occur, and the fact that a high percentage of suicide attempts using other methods are not successful. The fact someone tries to kill themselves once doesn't mean they will try again, or keep trying until they are successful. OTH, shooting yourself tends to be quite final, no opportunity to change your mind.

People who try to kill themselves don't necessarily really want to kill themselves.

[sologdin]

scot--

the argument might be that toxins take sufficient time that antidotes might be administered or stomachs pumped. gun-in-mouth is instant? so is defenestration, though. ligature strangulation and exsanguination, not so much, perhaps some time for rescue and or buyer's regret?

[CloudFlare]

scot--

the argument might be that toxins take sufficient time that antidotes might be administered or stomachs pumped. gun-in-mouth is instant? so is defenestration, though. ligature strangulation and exsanguination, not so much, perhaps some time for rescue and or buyer's regret?

Clearly, all windows must be nailed, screwed, welded or superglued shut.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Defenstration is another word for beheading. You should read Gene Wolfe.

[Horza]

Harder to pull a lot of those forms off, they tend to require more planning and set up.

Admittedly, not everyone pulls the trigger on themselves with fatal results (Hideki Tojo, Unity Mitford, how ya doing?), but not hard to see efficacy of firearms for spur-of-the-moment self-topping.

[Fragile Bird]

Here's the Harvard School of Public Health page on suicide. The availibilty of guns increases suicides.

[Robin Of House Hill]

You already register to pay your taxes, to drive, to vote, and a dozen other things.

I last voted in 2008. When I moved, I did not register again for a very definite reason. In California, the juror pool is gleaned from voter registration and driver's licences. Since I no longer drive (by choice), I never applied for a driver's license. And before anyone gets the wrong idea, the reason, I chose to avoid further jury duty is that Los Angeles County has a policy of using retirees and two other groups for long trials that would be a hardship for others. I unsuccessfully argued before a judge that this violated the equal protection clause. He didn't buy my argument. I decided I'd had enough. Now, they don't know I exist. As for taxes, beside my Social Security, my only other income is not taxable. I fall below the minimum required to file a return.

So, no, I'm not registered for much at all.

[Aemon Stark]

That is true, they would not know that penicillin would be invented in the 1940s. BUT its also absurd to believe they would not know and realize technology advances over time. They had seen it in their day, and of course they would know that even if they did not know the specific details, technology would advance. And the 2nd amendment reflects that, as its not limited to a specific ordinance that was the height of progress then, but not later.

In 1776 they still thought that disease was caused by humours and foul odours and "miasma". Your argument is wholly unconvincing.

[Aemon Stark]

FB,

As respectfully as possible I've never understood the inclusion of suicides because if someone really wants to kill themselves the presense or absence of a firearm is not going to stop them.

You are completely wrong and you clearly don't have much understanding of the inherently impulsive nature of suicide. It's for the same reason that suicide barriers are installed on tall bridges - they save lives.

[The Anti-Targ]

Defenstration is another word for beheading. You should read Gene Wolfe.

No, it's the technical term for being thrown out a window. beheading may occurr if one does not open the window first and you hit it at an unfortunate angle. But it's a wholly unreliable method if beheading is the primary goal. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defenestration?s=t

Paranoia and irrational fear seems to drive the demand for total freedom on gun ownership. Doesn't seem like a sound basis for public policy.

[RWHamel]

In 1776 they still thought that disease was caused by humours and foul odours and "miasma". Your argument is wholly unconvincing.

So, I take it from this that your theory is, that because they didn't have a good understanding of disease that it somehow invalidates the constitution they came up with in 1787. Sorry, fail.

[RWHamel]

You are completely wrong and you clearly don't have much understanding of the inherently impulsive nature of suicide. It's for the same reason that suicide barriers are installed on tall bridges - they save lives.

If I was going to use a toaster, I don't think your suicide barriers would work.

[straits]

If I was going to use a toaster, I don't think your suicide barriers would work.

In a bathtub? Don't you wanna die in a less fish n chips way?

[RWHamel]

In a bathtub? Don't you wanna die in a less fish n chips way?

God, you make your fish n chips in a bathtub. They must suck

[danm_999]

So, I take it from this that your theory is, that because they didn't have a good understanding of disease that it somehow invalidates the constitution they came up with in 1787. Sorry, fail.

I think the point of the analogy was that what the Founder's wrote in the Constitution might not be so inviolate to them if they had another 200 years of societal progression and technological advancement. A better analogy comes from Jefferson;

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

[RWHamel]

I think the point of the analogy was that what the Founder's wrote in the Constitution might not be so inviolate to them if they had another 200 years of societal progression and technological advancement. A better analogy comes from Jefferson;

I think they did a better job back then, than anyone could do today.