|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On February 20 2012 08:57 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 08:42 Domus wrote:
Just some facts....Yes, gun ownership sounds like a great plan....
In 2007, guns took the lives of 31,224 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.
69,863 Americans were treated in hospital emergency department for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2007.
Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2007, following motor vehicle accidents and poisoning.
Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.
In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.
In 2007, guns were the cause of the unintentional deaths of 613 people.
From 2001 through 2007, over 4,900 people in the United States died from unintentional shootings.
Over 1,750 victims of unintentional shootings between 2001 and 2007 were under 25 years of age.
People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.
A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.
The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23%). How many people die to alcohol-related accidents? http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_alcohol_related_deaths_occur_each_yearAlcohol is directly responsible for over three times as many deaths each year as guns. Why no outcry for banning alcohol? Further, 31,000 deaths a year is an inconsequential number in a nation of over 300 million people. Even the 100k deaths caused by alcohol is inconsequential with a population this large, so imho, we should ban neither. If you want to ban guns though, because they cause so much death, you should also want to ban alcohol, which causes three times as much death.
If the only standard for wanting to ban something is the number of death, then perhaps we'll want to establish that pedophilia is fine and dandy since it kills less people than alcohol. Slippery slopes get around.
That said, I don't think it's realistic to say that we should ban guns. That'd just be another law that people would break - effectively having no positive effect best and a negative effect at worst. Like I said, the 2nd amendment was a mistake - an unrecoverable mistake.
|
On February 20 2012 09:04 Djzapz wrote:
That said, I don't think it's realistic to say that we should ban guns. That'd just be another law that people would break - effectively having no positive effect best and a negative effect at worst. Like I said, the 2nd amendment was a mistake - an unrecoverable mistake.
True. It would be impossible to enforce anyway, as the country is flooded with guns already.
|
On February 20 2012 09:00 Domus wrote:
Hey, I don't give a shit man. If you want guns to "protect" yourself, then go ahead. All I am showing you is that your cure is worse than the disease. Most countries in the world do just fine without having guns in every house.
Guns don't make your safer, they make you less safe.
Also, the main goal of alcohol is not to increase your safety. But the big argument for guns is that they increase safety...
You're entitled to your opinion. But I would suggest you, and along with other pro gun control believers, actually do some research on the topic. The major scientific hard hitting studies do not actually support the belief that less guns makes a society more safe. Extensive google-ing of the topic will confirm this.
Gun control is very counter-intuitive and I don't blame most people for being for it.
|
On February 20 2012 09:09 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 09:00 Domus wrote:
Hey, I don't give a shit man. If you want guns to "protect" yourself, then go ahead. All I am showing you is that your cure is worse than the disease. Most countries in the world do just fine without having guns in every house.
Guns don't make your safer, they make you less safe.
Also, the main goal of alcohol is not to increase your safety. But the big argument for guns is that they increase safety... You're entitled to your opinion. But I would suggest you, and along with other pro gun control believers, actually do some research on the topic. The major scientific hard hitting studies do not actually support the belief that less guns makes a society more safe. Extensive google-ing of the topic will confirm this. Gun control is very counter-intuitive and I don't blame most people for being for it.
I am not a pro gun control believer. I live in the Netherlands, no guns allowed. No need to spend another thought on it  . I am not less free, I am not less safe, I don't feel so scared that I need to arm myself in my own house. I don't mind that you have guns in your hand, or in your house. Geographically it is impossible for you to hit me with it :p.
|
You want my gun? Just try and take it.
|
On February 20 2012 09:18 Aurocaido wrote:
You want my gun? Just try and take it.
Watch out guys, we're dealing with a badass over here... But yeah aggressive people hinting at violence won't convince anybody, at all. In fact, you're a bit scary.
|
On February 20 2012 09:18 Aurocaido wrote:
You want my gun? Just try and take it.
i snuk behind him and took his gun.he said something about taking his gun i said:dude you have no gun and ran off.
|
On February 20 2012 08:57 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 08:42 Domus wrote:
Just some facts....Yes, gun ownership sounds like a great plan....
In 2007, guns took the lives of 31,224 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.
69,863 Americans were treated in hospital emergency department for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2007.
Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2007, following motor vehicle accidents and poisoning.
Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.
In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.
In 2007, guns were the cause of the unintentional deaths of 613 people.
From 2001 through 2007, over 4,900 people in the United States died from unintentional shootings.
Over 1,750 victims of unintentional shootings between 2001 and 2007 were under 25 years of age.
People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.
A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.
The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23%). How many people die to alcohol-related accidents? http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_alcohol_related_deaths_occur_each_yearAlcohol is directly responsible for over three times as many deaths each year as guns. Why no outcry for banning alcohol? Further, 31,000 deaths a year is an inconsequential number in a nation of over 300 million people. Even the 100k deaths caused by alcohol is inconsequential with a population this large, so imho, we should ban neither. If you want to ban guns though, because they cause so much death, you should also want to ban alcohol, which causes three times as much death.
how is alcohol death and gun death related? its not like you accedently shoot yourself but you shoot someone else, hence kill him. never seen anyone die from someone elses alcoholism (of course not stuff like drunk driving but that should be forbidden, even in the US)
|
On February 20 2012 09:07 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 09:04 Djzapz wrote:
That said, I don't think it's realistic to say that we should ban guns. That'd just be another law that people would break - effectively having no positive effect best and a negative effect at worst. Like I said, the 2nd amendment was a mistake - an unrecoverable mistake. True. It would be impossible to enforce anyway, as the country is flooded with guns already.
The US would need to buy back all the guns in the country. Its been done in Australia when semi-automatics were banned after a mass shooting of civilians, it would be much more costly in the US however. We used to have one for shooting at the farm, but we sold it at the police dept for more than we paid for.
Since then there has only been 1 gun related death in more than a decade. Actually i think i recall there being an innocent bystander involved that was shot to eliminate witnesses only that iirc it was because he went to save the victim instead of running away, he may have thought there was some relationship between them.
On February 20 2012 09:09 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 09:00 Domus wrote:
Hey, I don't give a shit man. If you want guns to "protect" yourself, then go ahead. All I am showing you is that your cure is worse than the disease. Most countries in the world do just fine without having guns in every house.
Guns don't make your safer, they make you less safe.
Also, the main goal of alcohol is not to increase your safety. But the big argument for guns is that they increase safety... You're entitled to your opinion. But I would suggest you, and along with other pro gun control believers, actually do some research on the topic. The major scientific hard hitting studies do not actually support the belief that less guns makes a society more safe. Extensive google-ing of the topic will confirm this. Gun control is very counter-intuitive and I don't blame most people for being for it.
How does this stand when its obvious countries with gun control have lower murder rates than those that don't?
Find a statistic from one of these major scientific hard hitting studies that disproves this and I will reconsider my judgement. Honestly I don't see how you can prove either way, the only way you could is to enact gun control in the US and see what happens.
|
On February 20 2012 09:04 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 08:57 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 08:42 Domus wrote:
Just some facts....Yes, gun ownership sounds like a great plan....
In 2007, guns took the lives of 31,224 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.
69,863 Americans were treated in hospital emergency department for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2007.
Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2007, following motor vehicle accidents and poisoning.
Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.
In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.
In 2007, guns were the cause of the unintentional deaths of 613 people.
From 2001 through 2007, over 4,900 people in the United States died from unintentional shootings.
Over 1,750 victims of unintentional shootings between 2001 and 2007 were under 25 years of age.
People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.
A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.
The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23%). How many people die to alcohol-related accidents? http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_alcohol_related_deaths_occur_each_yearAlcohol is directly responsible for over three times as many deaths each year as guns. Why no outcry for banning alcohol? Further, 31,000 deaths a year is an inconsequential number in a nation of over 300 million people. Even the 100k deaths caused by alcohol is inconsequential with a population this large, so imho, we should ban neither. If you want to ban guns though, because they cause so much death, you should also want to ban alcohol, which causes three times as much death. If the only standard for wanting to ban something is the number of death, then perhaps we'll want to establish that pedophilia is fine and dandy since it kills less people than alcohol. Slippery slopes get around. That said, I don't think it's realistic to say that we should ban guns. That'd just be another law that people would break - effectively having no positive effect best and a negative effect at worst. Like I said, the 2nd amendment was a mistake - an unrecoverable mistake.
I didn't say that should be the only standard, just that it was foolish for pro gun-control people to constantly bring up gun-related deaths when so many other things kill way more people.
|
On February 20 2012 09:23 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 09:04 Djzapz wrote:On February 20 2012 08:57 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 08:42 Domus wrote:
Just some facts....Yes, gun ownership sounds like a great plan....
In 2007, guns took the lives of 31,224 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.
69,863 Americans were treated in hospital emergency department for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2007.
Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2007, following motor vehicle accidents and poisoning.
Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.
In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.
In 2007, guns were the cause of the unintentional deaths of 613 people.
From 2001 through 2007, over 4,900 people in the United States died from unintentional shootings.
Over 1,750 victims of unintentional shootings between 2001 and 2007 were under 25 years of age.
People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.
A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.
The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23%). How many people die to alcohol-related accidents? http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_alcohol_related_deaths_occur_each_yearAlcohol is directly responsible for over three times as many deaths each year as guns. Why no outcry for banning alcohol? Further, 31,000 deaths a year is an inconsequential number in a nation of over 300 million people. Even the 100k deaths caused by alcohol is inconsequential with a population this large, so imho, we should ban neither. If you want to ban guns though, because they cause so much death, you should also want to ban alcohol, which causes three times as much death. If the only standard for wanting to ban something is the number of death, then perhaps we'll want to establish that pedophilia is fine and dandy since it kills less people than alcohol. Slippery slopes get around. That said, I don't think it's realistic to say that we should ban guns. That'd just be another law that people would break - effectively having no positive effect best and a negative effect at worst. Like I said, the 2nd amendment was a mistake - an unrecoverable mistake. I didn't say that should be the only standard, just that it was foolish for pro gun-control people to constantly bring up gun-related deaths when so many other things kill way more people.
Murder rates (especially innocent victims) are a good enough reason.
It would be a different story if the number of alcohol related deaths was due to people forcefully injecting alcohol into other people against their will.
Guns in non-farming areas serve no other purpose than to kill people, if it didn't then I'm sure people would reconsider. Cars also kill a lot of people, but a lot of people also need go to work, hence cars can't be banned, for the same reason electricity can't be banned, etc.
|
On February 20 2012 09:23 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 09:07 Kukaracha wrote:On February 20 2012 09:04 Djzapz wrote:
That said, I don't think it's realistic to say that we should ban guns. That'd just be another law that people would break - effectively having no positive effect best and a negative effect at worst. Like I said, the 2nd amendment was a mistake - an unrecoverable mistake. True. It would be impossible to enforce anyway, as the country is flooded with guns already. The US would need to buy back all the guns in the country. Its been done in Australia when semi-automatics were banned after a mass shooting of civilians, it would be much more costly in the US however. Since then there has only been 1 gun related death in more than a decade. Actually i think i recall there being an innocent bystander involved that was shot to eliminate witnesses only that iirc it was because he went to save the victim instead of running away, he may have thought there was some relationship between them. Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 09:09 Nagano wrote:On February 20 2012 09:00 Domus wrote:
Hey, I don't give a shit man. If you want guns to "protect" yourself, then go ahead. All I am showing you is that your cure is worse than the disease. Most countries in the world do just fine without having guns in every house.
Guns don't make your safer, they make you less safe.
Also, the main goal of alcohol is not to increase your safety. But the big argument for guns is that they increase safety... You're entitled to your opinion. But I would suggest you, and along with other pro gun control believers, actually do some research on the topic. The major scientific hard hitting studies do not actually support the belief that less guns makes a society more safe. Extensive google-ing of the topic will confirm this. Gun control is very counter-intuitive and I don't blame most people for being for it. How does this stand when its obvious countries with gun control have lower murder rates than those that don't? Find a statistic from one of these major scientific hard hitting studies that disproves this and I will reconsider my judgement. Honestly I don't see how you can prove either way, the only way you could is to enact gun control in the US and see what happens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
Practically everyone in Switzerland has guns, and yet there is hardly any gun crime. The difference is that Switzerland also has much lower poverty rates than inner-city US. Poverty is what causes the high crime rates, not guns.
On February 20 2012 09:25 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 09:23 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 09:04 Djzapz wrote:On February 20 2012 08:57 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 08:42 Domus wrote:
Just some facts....Yes, gun ownership sounds like a great plan....
In 2007, guns took the lives of 31,224 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.
69,863 Americans were treated in hospital emergency department for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2007.
Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2007, following motor vehicle accidents and poisoning.
Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.
In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.
In 2007, guns were the cause of the unintentional deaths of 613 people.
From 2001 through 2007, over 4,900 people in the United States died from unintentional shootings.
Over 1,750 victims of unintentional shootings between 2001 and 2007 were under 25 years of age.
People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.
A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.
The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23%). How many people die to alcohol-related accidents? http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_alcohol_related_deaths_occur_each_yearAlcohol is directly responsible for over three times as many deaths each year as guns. Why no outcry for banning alcohol? Further, 31,000 deaths a year is an inconsequential number in a nation of over 300 million people. Even the 100k deaths caused by alcohol is inconsequential with a population this large, so imho, we should ban neither. If you want to ban guns though, because they cause so much death, you should also want to ban alcohol, which causes three times as much death. If the only standard for wanting to ban something is the number of death, then perhaps we'll want to establish that pedophilia is fine and dandy since it kills less people than alcohol. Slippery slopes get around. That said, I don't think it's realistic to say that we should ban guns. That'd just be another law that people would break - effectively having no positive effect best and a negative effect at worst. Like I said, the 2nd amendment was a mistake - an unrecoverable mistake. I didn't say that should be the only standard, just that it was foolish for pro gun-control people to constantly bring up gun-related deaths when so many other things kill way more people. Murder rates (especially innocent victims) are a good enough reason. It would be a different story if the number of alcohol related deaths was due to people forcefully injecting alcohol into other people against their will.
A large percent of gun related deaths are also alcohol related, I.E. the shooter was intoxicated. Get rid of alcohol, and the gun deaths go down as well. You kill two birds with one stone.
|
On February 20 2012 09:23 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 09:07 Kukaracha wrote:On February 20 2012 09:04 Djzapz wrote:
That said, I don't think it's realistic to say that we should ban guns. That'd just be another law that people would break - effectively having no positive effect best and a negative effect at worst. Like I said, the 2nd amendment was a mistake - an unrecoverable mistake. True. It would be impossible to enforce anyway, as the country is flooded with guns already. The US would need to buy back all the guns in the country. Its been done in Australia when semi-automatics were banned after a mass shooting of civilians, it would be much more costly in the US however. We used to have one for shooting at the farm, but we sold it at the police dept for more than we paid for. Since then there has only been 1 gun related death in more than a decade. Actually i think i recall there being an innocent bystander involved that was shot to eliminate witnesses only that iirc it was because he went to save the victim instead of running away, he may have thought there was some relationship between them. Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 09:09 Nagano wrote:On February 20 2012 09:00 Domus wrote:
Hey, I don't give a shit man. If you want guns to "protect" yourself, then go ahead. All I am showing you is that your cure is worse than the disease. Most countries in the world do just fine without having guns in every house.
Guns don't make your safer, they make you less safe.
Also, the main goal of alcohol is not to increase your safety. But the big argument for guns is that they increase safety... You're entitled to your opinion. But I would suggest you, and along with other pro gun control believers, actually do some research on the topic. The major scientific hard hitting studies do not actually support the belief that less guns makes a society more safe. Extensive google-ing of the topic will confirm this. Gun control is very counter-intuitive and I don't blame most people for being for it. How does this stand when its obvious countries with gun control have lower murder rates than those that don't? Find a statistic from one of these major scientific hard hitting studies that disproves this and I will reconsider my judgement. Honestly I don't see how you can prove either way, the only way you could is to enact gun control in the US and see what happens.
Again, what I posted on page 3;
On February 20 2012 04:00 Hertzy wrote:I recall hearing about a study that found that income disparity is a better predictor of violent crime in the US than gun prevalence. While digging around for it, I found another interesting study; Hemenway et al, "Firearm Prevalence and Social Capital" found that guns are more common in areas where there's low levels of social capital, that is people's trust in one another. Interestingly, they also used homicides and suicides with firearms as a measure of gun ownership. Kennedy et al, "Social capital, income inequality, and firearm violent crime" is probably the study I heard about. They found that "The profound effects of income inequality and social capital, when controlling for other factors such as poverty and firearm availability, on firearm violent crime indicate that policies that address these broader, macro-social forces warrant serious consideration."
Gun control is a poor predictor for murder rate.
|
On February 20 2012 09:22 teddyoojo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 08:57 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 08:42 Domus wrote:
Just some facts....Yes, gun ownership sounds like a great plan....
In 2007, guns took the lives of 31,224 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.
69,863 Americans were treated in hospital emergency department for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2007.
Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2007, following motor vehicle accidents and poisoning.
Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.
In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.
In 2007, guns were the cause of the unintentional deaths of 613 people.
From 2001 through 2007, over 4,900 people in the United States died from unintentional shootings.
Over 1,750 victims of unintentional shootings between 2001 and 2007 were under 25 years of age.
People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.
A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.
The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23%). How many people die to alcohol-related accidents? http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_alcohol_related_deaths_occur_each_yearAlcohol is directly responsible for over three times as many deaths each year as guns. Why no outcry for banning alcohol? Further, 31,000 deaths a year is an inconsequential number in a nation of over 300 million people. Even the 100k deaths caused by alcohol is inconsequential with a population this large, so imho, we should ban neither. If you want to ban guns though, because they cause so much death, you should also want to ban alcohol, which causes three times as much death. how is alcohol death and gun death related? its not like you accedently shoot yourself but you shoot someone else, hence kill him. never seen anyone die from someone elses alcoholism (of course not stuff like drunk driving but that should be forbidden, even in the US)
Any legal issue which death per capita is rather high will always be able to relate to other issues which are legal that have just as high or higher corresponding deaths per capita... That being said you're argument is a strawman argument, especially since you say "never seen anyone die from anyone elses alchoholism" and then directly state how the biggest reason is drunk driving which shouldnt be taken into account when we talk about killing someone else...
ridiculous ... I'd rather see someone dying from an accidental gun shot then a drunk driver killing 3 kids and 2 parents... Try to think with your head...
|
|
|
On February 20 2012 09:27 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 09:23 sluggaslamoo wrote:On February 20 2012 09:07 Kukaracha wrote:On February 20 2012 09:04 Djzapz wrote:
That said, I don't think it's realistic to say that we should ban guns. That'd just be another law that people would break - effectively having no positive effect best and a negative effect at worst. Like I said, the 2nd amendment was a mistake - an unrecoverable mistake. True. It would be impossible to enforce anyway, as the country is flooded with guns already. The US would need to buy back all the guns in the country. Its been done in Australia when semi-automatics were banned after a mass shooting of civilians, it would be much more costly in the US however. Since then there has only been 1 gun related death in more than a decade. Actually i think i recall there being an innocent bystander involved that was shot to eliminate witnesses only that iirc it was because he went to save the victim instead of running away, he may have thought there was some relationship between them. On February 20 2012 09:09 Nagano wrote:On February 20 2012 09:00 Domus wrote:
Hey, I don't give a shit man. If you want guns to "protect" yourself, then go ahead. All I am showing you is that your cure is worse than the disease. Most countries in the world do just fine without having guns in every house.
Guns don't make your safer, they make you less safe.
Also, the main goal of alcohol is not to increase your safety. But the big argument for guns is that they increase safety... You're entitled to your opinion. But I would suggest you, and along with other pro gun control believers, actually do some research on the topic. The major scientific hard hitting studies do not actually support the belief that less guns makes a society more safe. Extensive google-ing of the topic will confirm this. Gun control is very counter-intuitive and I don't blame most people for being for it. How does this stand when its obvious countries with gun control have lower murder rates than those that don't? Find a statistic from one of these major scientific hard hitting studies that disproves this and I will reconsider my judgement. Honestly I don't see how you can prove either way, the only way you could is to enact gun control in the US and see what happens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_SwitzerlandPractically everyone in Switzerland has guns, and yet there is hardly any gun crime. The difference is that Switzerland also has much lower poverty rates than inner-city US. Poverty is what causes the high crime rates, not guns.
Immensely important point.
|
How does this stand when its obvious countries with gun control have lower murder rates than those that don't?
Mexico has some of the strictest gun control in the world (despite the fact that the Mexican constitution guarantees the right to individual gun ownership) and also, at the moment, and for many years previous, has the highest level of violence and murders in the world.
And no one seems to really know where most of the guns are coming from, despite assertions to the contrary (that most come from the US, or are bought from corrupt Mexican soldiers, or come from Central America), because political concerns ensure that no one wants to find an answer contrary to their preconceived notions:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/jun/23/guns-in-mexico-a-challenge-to-obama-and-the-nra/
Find a statistic from one of these major scientific hard hitting studies that disproves this and I will reconsider my judgement. Honestly I don't see how you can prove either way, the only way you could is to enact gun control in the US and see what happens.
US states with stricter gun control have more murders and more violent crime in general than those without. Because gun ownership is not a very good indicator, as several people pointed out pages ago.
The general socioeconomic condition (smaller lower and underclass, less violence) and level of good governance (less corruption, less violence) of an area is a far more accurate indicator of the level of murders and other violent crime than gun ownership.
|
On February 20 2012 09:28 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
ridiculous ... I'd rather see someone dying from an accidental gun shot then a drunk driver killing 3 kids and 2 parents... Try to think with your head...
what difference does it makes if a person dies by a gunshot or by drunk driving? exactly, none. guns are there to shoot people. alcohol isnt there to drunkdrive kill someone. you cant forbid planes because some terrorists use them to fly into stuff. you can forbid guns because they kill innocent people.
|
On February 20 2012 09:32 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 09:27 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 09:23 sluggaslamoo wrote:On February 20 2012 09:07 Kukaracha wrote:On February 20 2012 09:04 Djzapz wrote:
That said, I don't think it's realistic to say that we should ban guns. That'd just be another law that people would break - effectively having no positive effect best and a negative effect at worst. Like I said, the 2nd amendment was a mistake - an unrecoverable mistake. True. It would be impossible to enforce anyway, as the country is flooded with guns already. The US would need to buy back all the guns in the country. Its been done in Australia when semi-automatics were banned after a mass shooting of civilians, it would be much more costly in the US however. Since then there has only been 1 gun related death in more than a decade. Actually i think i recall there being an innocent bystander involved that was shot to eliminate witnesses only that iirc it was because he went to save the victim instead of running away, he may have thought there was some relationship between them. On February 20 2012 09:09 Nagano wrote:On February 20 2012 09:00 Domus wrote:
Hey, I don't give a shit man. If you want guns to "protect" yourself, then go ahead. All I am showing you is that your cure is worse than the disease. Most countries in the world do just fine without having guns in every house.
Guns don't make your safer, they make you less safe.
Also, the main goal of alcohol is not to increase your safety. But the big argument for guns is that they increase safety... You're entitled to your opinion. But I would suggest you, and along with other pro gun control believers, actually do some research on the topic. The major scientific hard hitting studies do not actually support the belief that less guns makes a society more safe. Extensive google-ing of the topic will confirm this. Gun control is very counter-intuitive and I don't blame most people for being for it. How does this stand when its obvious countries with gun control have lower murder rates than those that don't? Find a statistic from one of these major scientific hard hitting studies that disproves this and I will reconsider my judgement. Honestly I don't see how you can prove either way, the only way you could is to enact gun control in the US and see what happens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_SwitzerlandPractically everyone in Switzerland has guns, and yet there is hardly any gun crime. The difference is that Switzerland also has much lower poverty rates than inner-city US. Poverty is what causes the high crime rates, not guns. Immensely important point.
Uh-uh, I think the main difference is that it's Switzerland. Killing isn't neutral enough for them.
|
On February 20 2012 09:27 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 09:23 sluggaslamoo wrote:On February 20 2012 09:07 Kukaracha wrote:On February 20 2012 09:04 Djzapz wrote:
That said, I don't think it's realistic to say that we should ban guns. That'd just be another law that people would break - effectively having no positive effect best and a negative effect at worst. Like I said, the 2nd amendment was a mistake - an unrecoverable mistake. True. It would be impossible to enforce anyway, as the country is flooded with guns already. The US would need to buy back all the guns in the country. Its been done in Australia when semi-automatics were banned after a mass shooting of civilians, it would be much more costly in the US however. Since then there has only been 1 gun related death in more than a decade. Actually i think i recall there being an innocent bystander involved that was shot to eliminate witnesses only that iirc it was because he went to save the victim instead of running away, he may have thought there was some relationship between them. On February 20 2012 09:09 Nagano wrote:On February 20 2012 09:00 Domus wrote:
Hey, I don't give a shit man. If you want guns to "protect" yourself, then go ahead. All I am showing you is that your cure is worse than the disease. Most countries in the world do just fine without having guns in every house.
Guns don't make your safer, they make you less safe.
Also, the main goal of alcohol is not to increase your safety. But the big argument for guns is that they increase safety... You're entitled to your opinion. But I would suggest you, and along with other pro gun control believers, actually do some research on the topic. The major scientific hard hitting studies do not actually support the belief that less guns makes a society more safe. Extensive google-ing of the topic will confirm this. Gun control is very counter-intuitive and I don't blame most people for being for it. How does this stand when its obvious countries with gun control have lower murder rates than those that don't? Find a statistic from one of these major scientific hard hitting studies that disproves this and I will reconsider my judgement. Honestly I don't see how you can prove either way, the only way you could is to enact gun control in the US and see what happens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_SwitzerlandPractically everyone in Switzerland has guns, and yet there is hardly any gun crime. The difference is that Switzerland also has much lower poverty rates than inner-city US. Poverty is what causes the high crime rates, not guns. Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 09:25 sluggaslamoo wrote:On February 20 2012 09:23 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 09:04 Djzapz wrote:On February 20 2012 08:57 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 08:42 Domus wrote:
Just some facts....Yes, gun ownership sounds like a great plan....
In 2007, guns took the lives of 31,224 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.
69,863 Americans were treated in hospital emergency department for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2007.
Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2007, following motor vehicle accidents and poisoning.
Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.
In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.
In 2007, guns were the cause of the unintentional deaths of 613 people.
From 2001 through 2007, over 4,900 people in the United States died from unintentional shootings.
Over 1,750 victims of unintentional shootings between 2001 and 2007 were under 25 years of age.
People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.
A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.
The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23%). How many people die to alcohol-related accidents? http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_alcohol_related_deaths_occur_each_yearAlcohol is directly responsible for over three times as many deaths each year as guns. Why no outcry for banning alcohol? Further, 31,000 deaths a year is an inconsequential number in a nation of over 300 million people. Even the 100k deaths caused by alcohol is inconsequential with a population this large, so imho, we should ban neither. If you want to ban guns though, because they cause so much death, you should also want to ban alcohol, which causes three times as much death. If the only standard for wanting to ban something is the number of death, then perhaps we'll want to establish that pedophilia is fine and dandy since it kills less people than alcohol. Slippery slopes get around. That said, I don't think it's realistic to say that we should ban guns. That'd just be another law that people would break - effectively having no positive effect best and a negative effect at worst. Like I said, the 2nd amendment was a mistake - an unrecoverable mistake. I didn't say that should be the only standard, just that it was foolish for pro gun-control people to constantly bring up gun-related deaths when so many other things kill way more people. Murder rates (especially innocent victims) are a good enough reason. It would be a different story if the number of alcohol related deaths was due to people forcefully injecting alcohol into other people against their will. A large percent of gun related deaths are also alcohol related, I.E. the shooter was intoxicated. Get rid of alcohol, and the gun deaths go down as well. You kill two birds with one stone.
Ok thanks.
But please explain how Swiss laws are any different from any other country with gun control laws.
To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.
It is, however, quite common to see a person serving military service to be en route with his rifle.
There are three conditions:
fulfilling the conditions for buying a permit (see section below)
stating plausibly the need to carry firearms to protect oneself, other people, or real property from a specified danger
passing an examination proving both weapon handling skills and knowledge regarding lawful use of the weapon
The carrying permit remains valid for a term of five years (unless otherwise surrendered or revoked), and applies only to the type of firearm for which the permit was issued. Additional constraints may be invoked to modify any specific permit. Neither hunters nor game wardens require a carrying permit.[citation needed]
Guns may be transported in public as long as an appropriate justification is present. This means to transport a gun in public, the following requirements apply:
The ammunition must be separated from the gun, no ammunition in a magazine.
The transport has to be direct, i.e.:
For courses or exercises hosted by marksmanship, hunting or military organisations,
To an army warehouse and back,
To and from a holder of a valid arms trade permit,
To and from a specific event, i.e. gun shows.
This is the same as Australia. You can have guns, but you need a license, you also get random searches. And for most criminals its enough of an arduous task that they revert to stick with strength in numbers or knives.
The other problem is concealed weapons. Can you carry concealed weapons in public in Switzerland? If they are banned, then it is the same over here. You can carry rifles around, but not pistols. It makes a huge difference in safety.
There are quite a lot of cases where gun related crimes involved cases of revenge in relationships and other things. They did it because its so easy to kill people with a gun, give them a few months cool down period and they wouldn't have committed the murder. If they ran in with a knife and stabbed someone instead, the result would be completely different.
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/2940-prof-kills-three-at-uah-a-gun-free-school-zone
On February 20 2012 04:00 Hertzy wrote:I recall hearing about a study that found that income disparity is a better predictor of violent crime in the US than gun prevalence. While digging around for it, I found another interesting study; Hemenway et al, "Firearm Prevalence and Social Capital" found that guns are more common in areas where there's low levels of social capital, that is people's trust in one another. Interestingly, they also used homicides and suicides with firearms as a measure of gun ownership. Kennedy et al, "Social capital, income inequality, and firearm violent crime" is probably the study I heard about. They found that "The profound effects of income inequality and social capital, when controlling for other factors such as poverty and firearm availability, on firearm violent crime indicate that policies that address these broader, macro-social forces warrant serious consideration."
Cool thanks, will look into it later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
