5 accidentally shot at gun shows in North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana By Vignesh Ramachandran, Staff Writer, NBC News Five people were wounded in accidents at gun shows in North Carolina, Ohio and Indiana on Saturday, according to authorities.
In Raleigh, N.C., authorities said three people were wounded when a loaded shotgun accidentally discharged at the Dixie Gun and Knife Show at the N.C. State Fairgrounds.
Officials say Gary Lynn Wilson, 36, was having his shotgun checked before entering the show when the incident happened. He was unzipping his 12-gauge shotgun's case when it accidentally fired birdshot pellets, hitting three people, The News & Observer in Raleigh reported. Wilson was planning on privately selling the gun at the show, according to NBC affiliate WNCN.
The three victims, Janet Hoover, Linwood Hester and Jake Alderman, were hit, respectively, in the right torso, left hand and right hand, WNCN reported. They were taken to the hospital for non-life threatening injuries.
Witness Daniel Peadan told WNCN he was about to enter the building, when he heard a loud pop: "The people right there at the door, a lot of them ran ... They scattered because it was chaotic."
"This was an accidental discharge," said Brian Long, a spokesman for the North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, in a statement.
The show closed early Saturday because of the shooting, according to The News & Observer. When the show reopens Sunday private gun sales will not be permitted, but only sales by licensed dealers at the show are allowed, Long said. By Saturday evening, the event's website clearly stipulated: "No personal firearms are to be brought into the show."
The Wake County Sheriff's Department is investigating Saturday's incident, and it's not clear yet whether there are pending charges, according to Long.
In Medina, Ohio, an exhibitor at a local gun show was opening a box containing a gun when the weapon went off, striking his partner, who was sitting next to him, NBC station WKYC of Cleveland reported.
The victim suffered non-life threatening injuries in the arm and thigh and was taken to a hospital.
Police told WKYC the shooting was accidental, and a man who attended the show had sold that gun to the exhibitor.
In Indianapolis, state police said a 54-year-old man was loading his .45 caliber semi-automatic gun when he shot himself in the hand, The Associated Press reported. The victim, Emory L. Cozee, had been leaving the Indy 1500 Gun and Knife show at the state fairgrounds, officials told the AP. Loaded personal weapons are not permitted inside this show, according to the AP. Cozee was hospitalized. Police told the AP no charges will be filed and the shooting was accidental.
These incidents all happened on the first "National Gun Appreciation Day," which was organized by Political Media, a Republican consulting firm.
In Raleigh, police say around 200 gun-rights supporters marched around the legislative building in downtown Raleigh on Saturday, The News & Observer reported.
Across the country Saturday, there were similar rallies by gun-rights advocates. In Brooksville, Fla., about 1,000 people gathered holding signs like "Stop the Gun Grabbers," Reuters reported. In Denver, just miles away from the scene of the July 2012 movie theater massacre, about 500 people were outside the state capitol rallying, according to Reuters.
The attack on an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 first-graders and six staffers dead in December has sparked a new debate over gun control. Last week, President Barack Obama proposed new gun controls to reduce violence.
Firearms expert Greg A. Danas told NBC News while it's up to a gun show owner to determine safety rules, he recommends measures like inspecting guns and ensuring firing pins are disabled.
"Even people with the best intentions, screw up, occasionally make mistakes," Danas said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
or, if you prefer
Gun Appreciation Day Celebrated With Accidental Shootings at Gun Shows in North Carolina and Ohio (UPDATE) Taylor Berman
Three people were wounded Saturday afternoon after an accidental shooting at the Dixie Gun and Knife Show in Raleigh, North Carolina. The incident apparently occurred at a security check point when the owner of a 12-gauge shotgun was asked to remove his gun from its case. Somehow, the gun discharged, shooting two people in the hand and one in the right torso.
Meanwhile, in an entirely unrelated incident, a man at the Medina County Gun Show was shot and injured later Saturday afternoon.
As the Daily Intelligencer notes, today is both Gun Appreciation Day and Guns Across America. What a perfect way to celebrate!
UPDATE: And there was another shooting. A man shot himself in the hand while loading his gun outside the Indy 1500 Gun and Knife Show gun show in Indianapolis.
Wasn't there a story a while back where someone gave a kid an Uzi to try out? The gun owner and the parent didn't seem to think this was a bad idea. And the recoil led to the kid losing control and shooting themselves in the head?
I question the intelligence of a lot of people to be allowed to drive something as dangerous as a car, let alone own a gun. Note that the guy with the shotgun wasn't at much risk of naturally selecting himself out of the population, he shot three other people instead. Nice. What a moron.
Kilkrazy wrote: Because gun control would stop that kind of idiot from getting a licence.
What license?
Howard A Treesong wrote: Wasn't there a story a while back where someone gave a kid an Uzi to try out? The gun owner and the parent didn't seem to think this was a bad idea. And the recoil led to the kid losing control and shooting themselves in the head?
I'd love to see that story, as the physics involved would appear to belong to another, less restrictive dimension.
Kilkrazy wrote: Because gun control would stop that kind of idiot from getting a licence.
What license?
Howard A Treesong wrote: Wasn't there a story a while back where someone gave a kid an Uzi to try out? The gun owner and the parent didn't seem to think this was a bad idea. And the recoil led to the kid losing control and shooting themselves in the head?
I'd love to see that story, as the physics involved would appear to belong to another, less restrictive dimension.
The kind of licence you don't have in the USA, which prevents gun ownership by idiots who shoot their neighbours through complete lack of proper safety.
The kind of licence you don't have in the USA, which prevents gun ownership by idiots who shoot their neighbours through complete lack of proper safety.
Snrub wrote: Who carries a loaded shotgun around in a bag anyway? Foolishness.
Idiots thats who. My Uncle Dave does the same thing. And heres a funny story, he nearly shot his penis off while cleaning a revolver............................ (is that enough periods to give the effect needed?) apparently he thought it was unloaded. Ive told this story many times on here, but the sheer amount if fething stupid just shines
Snrub wrote: Who carries a loaded shotgun around in a bag anyway? Foolishness.
Idiots thats who. My Uncle Dave does the same thing. And heres a funny story, he nearly shot his penis off while cleaning a revolver............................ (is that enough periods to give the effect needed?) apparently he thought it was unloaded. Ive told this story many times on here, but the sheer amount if fething stupid just shines
Responsible gun owners dont have accidents
Yes, but responsible gun owners also shouldn't want irresponsible gun owners to exist.
KingCracker wrote: Obviously we dont. But thats like sensible people wanting racists to disappear, its a great idea, but it wont/cant happen.
Respectfully, this isn't the best analogy. For one, racism doesn't (directly) kill people, it's just a mindset. We can't, and shouldn't try, policing ideas. Here's a better way of explaining it, via a silly, easily destroyed strawman - behold:
The kind of licence you don't have in the USA, which prevents gun ownership by idiots who shoot their neighbours through complete lack of proper safety.
Licenses prevent that?
Somebody should tell the DMV.
See, what Seaward doesn't realize in this even worse perfect world fallacy is that's he's sort of assisting the people arguing for licensing, or tighter licensing, depending on venue. He thinks that this poor argument - that the DMV requires licensing, but hasn't eliminated accidents entirely, hence we shouldn't bother - shows the futility of licensing firearms,but it actually illustrates the gulf of differences between licensing a vehicle and a firearm. The DMV actually tries. The DMV already requires you to display some level of proficiency with a vehicle before it gives you a license (some jursidictions also do this with firearms, but many don't - mine doesn't; the only proficiency I need to display to buy a handgun is the ability to write a check for $30 and have a clean criminal record), and the DMV requires ongoing eyesight tests. As you get older, they will generally require retesting with increasing frequency. If you're known to be an unsafe driver, people can report you to the DMV (example) where they can review your proficiency. Acts of negligence will cause you to lose you license, whereas loaded-unsafed-shotgun-in-a-duffel-bag-guy probably doesn't even need a license to get it, let alone have one revoked.
Gun rights advocates should be pressing for these people to be prosecuted for criminal negligence, not defending them.
I thought gun shows prided themselves on safety? Guess standards have slipped since the election and the current "panic" to buy guns by every untrained person out there.
On a sort of related topic, I'm planning on attending a gun show today. I'll let you guys know if anyone does anything stupid while I'm there.
MrDwhitey wrote: Clearly we need to regulate Pokemon cards more stringently.
I've always been a advocate of more CCG regulation. Mostly with starting that they may not be in a store when people are trying to play RPG's or Warhammer.
Ouze wrote: See, what Seaward doesn't realize in this even worse perfect world fallacy is that's he's sort of assisting the people arguing for licensing, or tighter licensing, depending on venue. He thinks that this poor argument - that the DMV requires licensing, but hasn't eliminated accidents entirely, hence we shouldn't bother - shows the futility of licensing firearms,but it actually illustrates the gulf of differences between licensing a vehicle and a firearm. The DMV actually tries. The DMV already requires you to display some level of proficiency with a vehicle before it gives you a license (some jursidictions also do this with firearms, but many don't - mine doesn't; the only proficiency I need to display to buy a handgun is the ability to write a check for $30 and have a clean criminal record), and the DMV requires ongoing eyesight tests. As you get older, they will generally require retesting with increasing frequency. If you're known to be an unsafe driver, people can report you to the DMV (example) where they can review your proficiency. Acts of negligence will cause you to lose you license, whereas loaded-unsafed-shotgun-in-a-duffel-bag-guy probably doesn't even need a license to get it, let alone have one revoked.
Gun rights advocates should be pressing for these people to be prosecuted for criminal negligence, not defending them.
"Strawman" really is your favorite word. One of these days, you should discover what it means.
Licensing has done absolutely nothing to prevent stupid people from doing stupid things. Even stupid gun owners would be quite capable of passing basic proficiency tests, and anything beyond those would be declared unconstitutional. Most of the people who killed someone while driving drunk had a driver's license at the time. Driver's licenses prevent people who quite simply lack the knowledge of traffic laws, or have physical disabilities that prevent them from driving safely, from driving a vehicle, but they do nothing at all to prevent people who meet basic requirements from making stupid decisions or even stupid mistakes. I'm not sure why people think it would be any different with guns, save for simply not having actually spent any time considering it.
And, as always, the people who don't meet licensing requirements yet choose to utilize what's being licensed will do so anyone. My girlfriend's bar has a whole kitchen full of illegal immigrant busboys and dishwashers who cheerfully drive unlicensed every day.
The kind of licence you don't have in the USA, which prevents gun ownership by idiots who shoot their neighbours through complete lack of proper safety.
Licenses prevent that?
Somebody should tell the DMV.
Of course licences don't "prevent" accidents. What they do is to reduce the rate of accidents by ensuring a reasonable level of training for the majority of users.
The reason why places like Egypt have a shocking rate of road accidents is because their driver licensing system is a joke.
Despite thorough licensing and evaluation by the Department of Energy, 3 Mile Island still had a partial meltdown. Ergo, licensing is ineffectual and anyone who wants to should be allowed to build a nuclear reactor on their property.
Ouze wrote: Despite thorough licensing and evaluation by the Department of Energy, 3 Mile Island still had a partial meltdown. Ergo, licensing is ineffectual and anyone who wants to should be allowed to build a nuclear reactor on their property.
Driver's licenses prevent people who quite simply lack the knowledge of traffic laws, or have physical disabilities that prevent them from driving safely, from driving a vehicle, but they do nothing at all to prevent people who meet basic requirements from making stupid decisions or even stupid mistakes.
Yes, licensing is based on a certain set of criteria.
dogma wrote: Do you know, in this context, what it means?
Why would you even ask something like this? It's totally obvious he does.
It means saying something like "since there are plane crashes, we shouldn't require people to have licenses to fly jumbo jets". It does not mean something like "since the DMV hasn't eliminated car accidents, licensing won't work for gun ownership".
MrDwhitey wrote: Clearly we need to regulate Pokemon cards more stringently.
I've always been a advocate of more CCG regulation. Mostly with starting that they may not be in a store when people are trying to play RPG's or Warhammer.
I once gave myself a papercut on a CCG card, so good call
dogma wrote: Do you know, in this context, what it means?
Why would you even ask something like this? It's totally obvious he does.
It means saying something like "since there are plane crashes, we shouldn't require people to have licenses to fly jumbo jets". It does not mean something like "since the DMV hasn't eliminated car accidents, licensing won't work for gun ownership".
Plain as the nose on your face, chum.
Maybe American presidents should also be licensed/made to sit basic economic classes. After all, they always get your country in debt!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Maybe American presidents should also be licensed/made to sit basic economic classes. After all, they always get your country in debt!
Technically - although it rarely works this way - it's largely Congress that gets the country in debt. In this country, they ultimately control the purse strings and approve spending or, again in theory, cut spending or programs. For example, the current debt ceiling crisis is due to how our budgeting process works - first Congress approves spending bills that total up to X dollars, and then later they approve paying for the X dollars they spent. It's a weird system but it works used to work OK. Attempts to give the president more control over budget matters, such as the line item veto, have been found unconstitutional (and rightly so IMO).
KingCracker wrote: Obviously we dont. But thats like sensible people wanting racists to disappear, its a great idea, but it wont/cant happen.
Respectfully, this isn't the best analogy. For one, racism doesn't (directly) kill people, it's just a mindset. We can't, and shouldn't try, policing ideas. Here's a better way of explaining it, via a silly, easily destroyed strawman - behold:
The kind of licence you don't have in the USA, which prevents gun ownership by idiots who shoot their neighbours through complete lack of proper safety.
Licenses prevent that?
Somebody should tell the DMV.
See, what Seaward doesn't realize in this even worse perfect world fallacy is that's he's sort of assisting the people arguing for licensing, or tighter licensing, depending on venue. He thinks that this poor argument - that the DMV requires licensing, but hasn't eliminated accidents entirely, hence we shouldn't bother - shows the futility of licensing firearms,but it actually illustrates the gulf of differences between licensing a vehicle and a firearm. The DMV actually tries. The DMV already requires you to display some level of proficiency with a vehicle before it gives you a license (some jursidictions also do this with firearms, but many don't - mine doesn't; the only proficiency I need to display to buy a handgun is the ability to write a check for $30 and have a clean criminal record), and the DMV requires ongoing eyesight tests. As you get older, they will generally require retesting with increasing frequency. If you're known to be an unsafe driver, people can report you to the DMV (example) where they can review your proficiency. Acts of negligence will cause you to lose you license, whereas loaded-unsafed-shotgun-in-a-duffel-bag-guy probably doesn't even need a license to get it, let alone have one revoked.
Gun rights advocates should be pressing for these people to be prosecuted for criminal negligence, not defending them.
No I think mine was perfect for my point. His rebuttal with the license did make sense, but we arnt talking about licensing gun owners, we are talking about them being idiots and shooting someone, weather on purpose or accidentally. Racism, is an ignorant act that has cause MUCH violence and death. Also, many firearms are not outwardly meant to cause people harm, where as racism pretty much is.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also intelligence tests are biased as well. Just because people can score high on intelligence tests doesnt make them smart. Again, my Uncle Dave is prime example. He is a VERY intelligent man, a state certified diesel mechanic, state certified hydraulics mechanic and can run diagnostic equipment like you or I breathe. The man is still lacking the sense to carry firearms unloaded and do proper safety checks before and after use.
I think you know what I mean. How many cleaning accidents, gun-show incidents, and hunters shooting themselves while climbing up to their tree-stand show up in the news.
Fully half the people in this country that own guns scare the ever-living hell out of me when I think about such buffoons having a deadly (ranged) weapon.
My own cousin brought a fully-loaded Desert Eagle to my Grandmother's 78th birthday party, and was showing it off among the kids and old folks. He had no concept that it was inappropriate - he argued it was perfectly right for him do so because he "had a CCW" and "that's his right under the 2nd amendment".
He is also the cousin that blew a hole in the ceiling with a rifle he was cleaning because it was still loaded after a hunting trip.
Carrying a CCW "condition one" has it's place but I did have to unload and clear my sidearm at the gunshow I was just at last weekend.
I'd give anything if every one learned these following rules, preferably in school. If you follow these rules. You will never have a mishap baring catastrophic mechanical failure.
Colonel Cooper's Four Weapons Safety Rules: 1. Treat every weapon as if it were loaded. 2. Never point a weapon at anything you aren't prepared to destroy 3. Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you're prepared to fire. 4. Keep the weapon on safe until you're prepared to fire.
Edit: In idiots having mishaps news I went to the range this weekend to enjoy shooting targets at various ranges. As we get there there's two ambulances and a couple squad cars going in. My buddy used to work at this range and I've been shooting there since I first held a gun. So we're concerned for the staffers we know and go check it out. Turns out a new shooter /somehow/ managed to fillet her hand with the slide of the pistol she was shooting (I seriously have no idea how, when I say that's just shy of impossible I mean it, you have to /really/ be fething up) then shot her friend in the leg as she was spazzing out (just grazed her).
For the record, that was the first major mishap at the range since I've been shooting there, which is roughly a decade.
AustonT wrote: Oh look dumb people did dumb things, color me suprised.
KingCracker wrote:
Responsible gun owners dont have accidents
That's not really true, accidents can happen to anyone; and do.
I have heard it said that there aren't really accidental discharges, only negligent ones.
I've heard a story or two of mechanical failure resulting in accidental firing, but that's about it. Other then those extremely rare occurrences I'd agree with this statement.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Carrying a CCW "condition one" has it's place but I did have to unload and clear my sidearm at the gunshow I was just at last weekend.
I'd give anything if every one learned these following rules, preferably in school. If you follow these rules. You will never have a mishap baring catastrophic mechanical failure.
Colonel Cooper's Four Weapons Safety Rules:
1. Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
2. Never point a weapon at anything you aren't prepared to destroy
3. Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you're prepared to fire.
4. Keep the weapon on safe until you're prepared to fire.
Only you can prevent idiots.
I dont even own guns, And even i know those rules.
I think its like a knife in a kitchen. Treat it right and make sure you dont people people in danger(When walking in a kitchen you have to yell "Knife on the line" so everyone clears you.
Seaward wrote: Licensing has done absolutely nothing to prevent stupid people from doing stupid things.
And now you're pretending that licensing never does anything. Pretending that either (a) people with a history of speeding or drunk driving are not more likely to cause serious harm to other motorists, or that (b) making it illegal for these people to continue driving somehow doesn't reduce the amount of time they spend on the road.
And you're making such stupid, stupid arguments all because you've decided to absolutely fight against any suggestion of increased licensing standards for firearms. This is where I was talking about both sides taking up such stupid, extreme positions, looking for a fight instead of looking for a compromise. And in doing so, the most likely result is laws that jerk everyone around and fail to save lives.
So stop being silly. Start thinking, and putting forward sensible arguments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KingCracker wrote: Also intelligence tests are biased as well. Just because people can score high on intelligence tests doesnt make them smart. Again, my Uncle Dave is prime example. He is a VERY intelligent man, a state certified diesel mechanic, state certified hydraulics mechanic and can run diagnostic equipment like you or I breathe. The man is still lacking the sense to carry firearms unloaded and do proper safety checks before and after use.
That's a good point. In fact, a lot of people who are smart tend to make assumptions about their competence in other areas, over-estimate their abilities in other fields. It's why you get doctors going bankrupt because they thought they could make millions in real estate or stocks. It's why you get scientists criticising fields other than their own, just assuming they're as knowledgable as people who actually work in those fields.
So an IQ test or something similar is really not likely to work. I mean having a high or low IQ really just isn't indicative of a person's ability to remember the basic gun safety rules and (more importantly) follow them at all times. That's a test of responsibility.
Really, the better method is to allow anyone to have a firearm, provided they pass a basic gun safety test. But then you have to be willing to revoke their license if they show they can't follow the rules, by say... bringing a loaded firearm to a gun show and accidentally shooting three people.
sebster wrote: And now you're pretending that licensing never does anything.
Licensing does a lot. It does not prevent people from making stupid mistakes.
So stop being silly. Start thinking, and putting forward sensible arguments.
They are sensible. That you don't like them doesn't change this, it just makes you angry. Sorry.
That's a good point. In fact, a lot of people who are smart tend to make assumptions about their competence in other areas, over-estimate their abilities in other fields.
I'm going to magnanimously avoid such an easy target.
Edit: In idiots having mishaps news I went to the range this weekend to enjoy shooting targets at various ranges. As we get there there's two ambulances and a couple squad cars going in. My buddy used to work at this range and I've been shooting there since I first held a gun. So we're concerned for the staffers we know and go check it out. Turns out a new shooter /somehow/ managed to fillet her hand with the slide of the pistol she was shooting (I seriously have no idea how, when I say that's just shy of impossible I mean it, you have to /really/ be fething up) then shot her friend in the leg as she was spazzing out (just grazed her).
For the record, that was the first major mishap at the range since I've been shooting there, which is roughly a decade.
Only you can prevent idiots.
My guess she was holding it movie style where for some reason they put one of their hands over the back of the slide, normally the fleshy part in between thumb and forefinger. Can't stop idiots.
Maybe we need an idiots license.
I saw a young woman cut her hand with the slide that way once. She was a novice shooter and adjusted her grip too high, and the person with her spotted it too late before she squeezed off a round. Made two nice gashes in her hand.
Thankfully she had better control and sense than to lose control of the weapon in her pain.
I don't think it'd be necessarily a bad thing for gun owners to have to have mandatory training in safe gun handling.
I'm not against gun ownership, but being born in the US does not automatically instil firearms skills no matter what some people think.
If you want to have one, fine, you should be allowed to.
However.
You should be trained in its safe use.
Seaward wrote: Licensing does a lot. It does not prevent people from making stupid mistakes.
Of course it does. Because it provides a direct, obvious penalty for people who make such stupid mistakes.
Drink driving was, obviously, always a stupid mistake. But it was only with legislation reforms and strong enforcement that threatened to take away the licenses of people who drove drunk that instances of drink driving decreased.
And what I've just typed is staggeringly fething obvious. And basically impossible to counter. And here you were saying licensing doesn't stop people making stupid mistakes. Because you're just saying whatever comes to your head to oppose any kind of reform of gun licensing. It's about half a step up from stimulus and response to be honest, and I'm sure you're capable of better.
If you break the law you might (temporarily or permanently) lose your right to liberty. Everyone's fine with that. If you break the law there's even places in the US where you might lose your right to life, and lots of people are OK with that. If you feth up while driving a car you might lose your driving license. Everyone's OK with that.
So why on EARTH are guns sacrosanct? Sure, it's in the Second Amendment; the right to liberty and life is in the Declaration of Independence, and yet people can be sensible about it. Why should anyone, after proving they don't have a grasp of basic gun safety, get to go home and keep posing a risk to his or her surroundings without any kind of punishment?
sebster wrote: Of course it does. Because it provides a direct, obvious penalty for people who make such stupid mistakes.
Drink driving was, obviously, always a stupid mistake. But it was only with legislation reforms and strong enforcement that threatened to take away the licenses of people who drove drunk that instances of drink driving decreased.
Well, sure, if we want to reduce the entire comparison down to drunk driving versus negligent discharge, you might actually have a point, for once.
Of course, that's a balls-out stupid comparison, because most NDs are more akin to running a stop sign without ever seeing it than getting hammered and driving.
And what I've just typed is staggeringly fething obvious. And basically impossible to counter. And here you were saying licensing doesn't stop people making stupid mistakes. Because you're just saying whatever comes to your head to oppose any kind of reform of gun licensing. It's about half a step up from stimulus and response to be honest, and I'm sure you're capable of better.
Nah, I'm saying it because it's true. Licensing (may) penalize you for mental lapses - I've certainly never had my driving license revoked despite three reckless driving court appearances, which in Virginia is automatic if you're above 20 over the speed limit - but it doesn't magically prevent you from failing to see the light or missing the No U-Turns sign or falling asleep at the wheel.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If you break the law you might (temporarily or permanently) lose your right to liberty. Everyone's fine with that. If you break the law there's even places in the US where you might lose your right to life, and lots of people are OK with that. If you feth up while driving a car you might lose your driving license. Everyone's OK with that.
So why on EARTH are guns sacrosanct? Sure, it's in the Second Amendment; the right to liberty and life is in the Declaration of Independence, and yet people can be sensible about it. Why should anyone, after proving they don't have a grasp of basic gun safety, get to go home and keep posing a risk to his or her surroundings without any kind of punishment?
I'm not certain what you're complaining about. Break the law - commit a felony or violent misdemeanor - lose your right to own a firearm. That's currently how it works, and seems to be what you're advocating, unless I'm missing something.
I'm still trying to figure out why people need guns in the first place. feth it, I am going to buy an illegal pistol and next time there's a massacre in Aus and i'm in the locale , i can loose off a few panicked shots to help the situation. Of course , not all humans are like me and get panic/shock most of em have a Bruce Willis gene , which allows them to react rationally in an irrational situation.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If you break the law you might (temporarily or permanently) lose your right to liberty. Everyone's fine with that. If you break the law there's even places in the US where you might lose your right to life, and lots of people are OK with that. If you feth up while driving a car you might lose your driving license. Everyone's OK with that.
So why on EARTH are guns sacrosanct? Sure, it's in the Second Amendment; the right to liberty and life is in the Declaration of Independence, and yet people can be sensible about it. Why should anyone, after proving they don't have a grasp of basic gun safety, get to go home and keep posing a risk to his or her surroundings without any kind of punishment?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If you break the law you might (temporarily or permanently) lose your right to liberty. Everyone's fine with that. If you break the law there's even places in the US where you might lose your right to life, and lots of people are OK with that. If you feth up while driving a car you might lose your driving license. Everyone's OK with that.
So why on EARTH are guns sacrosanct? Sure, it's in the Second Amendment; the right to liberty and life is in the Declaration of Independence, and yet people can be sensible about it. Why should anyone, after proving they don't have a grasp of basic gun safety, get to go home and keep posing a risk to his or her surroundings without any kind of punishment?
Parents used to teach their children gun safety. Now it's considered taboo in many places in the US. People who didn't grow up around firearms, who find themselves interested in owning them, should seek out classes independently.
As with all things, training is no barrier to stupidity. Education != responsibility.
As the above poster said, if someone does something incredibly stupid and illegal, they will lose their right to legally purchase guns. If you look at gun violence, though, the problem is not legal guns. It's mostly illegally purchased or stolen guns being used by (ironic, for being MLK day) urban minorities, usually black males, to kill each other. Though there is a racial correlation, the effects can probably be explained by cultural covariates. In any event...this is the problem we face:
Source: DOJ
The point is, accidents happen with everything. Gun-related accidents account for an incredibly small proportion of accidental deaths. If you want to attack gun ownership in general, attack the real causes - illegal straw purchases, gun theft, and murder by male urban minorities. You can't legislate this kind of thing out of existence. Sorry.
Bullockist wrote: I'm still trying to figure out why people need guns in the first place. feth it, I am going to buy an illegal pistol and next time there's a massacre in Aus and i'm in the locale , i can loose off a few panicked shots to help the situation. Of course , not all humans are like me and get panic/shock most of em have a Bruce Willis gene , which allows them to react rationally in an irrational situation.
Or you could pull your head from your cheeks about situations and training you don't know about, move to the United States, purchase a legal handgun, apply for a concealed carry permit, take the mandatory carry class, and if you're smart and responsible, as most gun owners are, learn, practice and prepare for such a situation where you might need to defend yourself you'll be ready and have already walked through how to respond.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: If you want to attack gun ownership in general, attack the real causes - illegal straw purchases, gun theft, and murder by male urban minorities. You can't legislate this kind of thing out of existence. Sorry.
So you're arguing that straw purchases, gun theft, and the high murder rate among urban minorities leads to a higher rate of gun ownership?
You can fight illegal straw men purchases by passing legislation that allows the ATF to track where guns used in crime are purchased from to track where straw men are getting their guns.
Bullockist wrote: I'm still trying to figure out why people need guns in the first place. feth it, I am going to buy an illegal pistol and next time there's a massacre in Aus and i'm in the locale , i can loose off a few panicked shots to help the situation. Of course , not all humans are like me and get panic/shock most of em have a Bruce Willis gene , which allows them to react rationally in an irrational situation.
Maybe this'll help with our mindsets:
It's a wall-o-text so I'll spoiler it...
Has a retort to "If it saves one child's life...its worth it"... a Peirs Morgan stab... Waterboarding... Bravehart reference... Martin Luther King... among others:
That’s a refrain that I hear from anti-gun types now and then. For instance here is a tweet Piers Morgan wrote the other day:
And if these measures stop one mass shooting, or save one child's life, it's worth it. #SandyHook #GunControlNow
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) January 15, 2013
Well, that all sounds nice, but it is ultimately childish thinking. Adults recognize that we often choose to value other things over safety all the time.
For instance, take cars. Cars kill far more people each year than guns, but no one would seriously talk about banning them. But why not? We could limit car ownership to emergency services (police, fire departments, EMT’s and so on), entities for whom automobile transportation more than likely saves lives on balance, and automobiles for the delivery of goods (such as groceries to the store or mail to your mailbox) and then everyone else? Well, you will just have to ride a bike or walk. If it would save one life, or indeed save one child’s life, isn’t it worth it?
Well, no, we have decided it isn’t worth it. We think of the staggering inconvenience that such a lifestyle would impose on us. Imagine having to live within walking distance of your job. Imagine having to live within walking distance of your grocery store. And of course would your job treat you decently if it knew that you would have to move from your home every time you wanted to quit? Would your grocery store give you good prices if it knew that you probably didn’t have the time and energy to go to a competitor? And either you live within walking distance of local movie theaters, night life and so on, or you just do without.
Or perhaps you also allow for an exception for public transportation. Some people are perfectly happy with that, but millions of people who could ride the bus every day choose not to and thus endanger the public with their cars. Oh sure, you might think that you present no danger and maybe you are right. But statistically speaking it is far deadlier than any gun and yet we allow you to keep your car.
And that is fine, I agree with that. But let’s not delude ourselves as to what we are doing. We are choosing to value something else more than human life. We are choosing every day to reject the logic of “if it saves one child’s life it’s worth it.”
Indeed, every day sports—including the sports played by children—causes fatalities, serious brain injuries, physical and mental disabilities for life, and yet these school sports programs go on. Plainly those parents who let their kids play those sports, as well as those who themselves play those sports, have decided to reject the “if it saves one life” argument.
But those are accidents!—you might plead. And generally they are, and that is an arguable distinction. To paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes, even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked.
But we also often choose intentional death over other values. For instance, if a man breaks into your home, every state in the union says you are allowed to use lethal force to stop that person. What you are protecting at that moment could be anything from your life, to your property, or protecting you or someone you love from sexual assault or kidnapping or who knows what. Likewise, outside of the home, deadly force is allowed when fighting off not just a murderer, but rapists and/or kidnappers. So the law is saying that you are not only allowed to value your life above a criminal's, but you are also allowed to value a man or woman’s right to withhold consent from sex, and a person’s personal freedom more than the life of a criminal. (And of course, you are allowed to use deadly force to protect other people’s lives, or to save them from rape or kidnapping.)
On the other hand, most states do not allow you to use deadly force merely to defend your property. In the eyes of the law, it just isn’t worth it to take a man’s life to save your car.
[Please note that none of this is legal advice. I am a lawyer but not your lawyer and you should seek legal advice about when and if you can apply deadly force in self-defense. Instead I am discussing the law to discuss the values of our society so we can decide what policies we should adopt.]
And one really doesn’t have to look far for statements from many great patriots and other luminaries talking about the need to sacrifice life for other values. So while we might take Patton’s admonition under advisement that “the object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his,” we can remember that nonetheless many patriots have been willing to die for their country. For instance it would be easy to simply quote Patrick Henry. So I will:
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Or look to the official state motto of New Hampshire: “Live free or Die.”
Or take these great words that William Wallace didn’t actually say, but stirs the heart nonetheless:
Ah, it gets me every time. And I want to focus on just one part of that speech:
Wallace: I am William Wallace. And I see a whole army of my countrymen here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What would you do without freedom? Will you fight?
Veteran soldier: Fight? Against that? No, we will run; and we will live.
Wallace: Aye, fight and you may die. Run and you'll live -- at least a while. And dying in your beds many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!!!
Yeah, as I said, William Wallace, didn’t say it. His descendant, Randall Wallace did, in a script for a movie that is largely fictional but nonetheless beautiful. And putting aside historical accuracy ask yourself about the philosophy being expounded on: is (Randall) Wallace wrong? Consider what he is saying. He is saying that there are times when it makes sense to risk or trade your life, for freedom and the freedom of your fellow citizens. Is he wrong?
And other examples abound. Just before he died, Nathan Hale was purported to say, “I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country.”
Or take the Declaration of Causes and Necessity for Taking Up Arms, adopted by the Continental Congress on July 6, of 1775, at a point of time when we were not yet seeing independence, but we were openly fighting the British:
With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with our [one] mind resolved to d[i]e Free-men rather than live Slaves.
The same document later declares:
In our own native land, in defence of the freedom that is our birth-right, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it--for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our fore-fathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before.
You can read the whole thing, here. Joseph Warren, a lesser known patriot of the Revolutionary era: “Nevertheless, to the persecution and tyranny of his cruel ministry we will not tamely submit -- appealing to Heaven for the justice of our cause, we determine to die or be free.”
Another from Warren:
Our country is in danger, but not to be despaired of. Our enemies are numerous and powerful; but we have many friends, determining to be free, and heaven and earth will aid the resolution. On you depend the fortunes of America. You are to decide the important question, on which rest the happiness and liberty of millions yet unborn. Act worthy of yourselves.
Washington:
The hour is fast approaching, on which the Honor and Success of this army, and the safety of our bleeding Country depend. Remember officers and Soldiers, that you are free men, fighting for the blessings of Liberty -- that slavery will be your portion, and that of your posterity, if you do not acquit yourselves like men.”
John Adams: “Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood.”
And this is off topic, but this quote from Adams is very interesting:
It has ever been my hobby-horse to see rising in America an empire of liberty, and a prospect of two or three hundred millions of freemen, without one noble or one king among them. You say it is impossible. If I should agree with you in this, I would still say, let us try the experiment, and preserve our equality as long as we can.
At the time of the Revolution our population was only 4 million. Only recently did it pass the upper end of his vision, the 300 million mark. How could he even imagine us sustaining a population that large? Without either massive changes in technology or expansion of territory (of which we have had both), it was simply impossible. And yet his vision has largely come true, hasn’t it?
Benjamin Franklin: “It is a common observation here that our cause is the cause of all mankind, and that we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own.”
Patrick Henry, again: “Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.” We might be invincible, but that doesn't mean this approach wouldn't have casualties.
The Declaration of Independence, after declaring that they were fighting for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, ends by saying “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” Translation they were willing to put their lives and fortunes on the line for this.
Thomas Jefferson: “What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
This sentiment was echoed by John Stuart Mill:
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
And of course there is Franklin’s famous quote which makes it most explicit that he would prefer liberty to safety: “They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
And this is hardly the only example. As we celebrate his birthday today, we can remember that every day of his life as a civil rights leader, Martin Luther King Jr. knew he was risking death. And not just for himself but for his family. I mean those who challenged racism back then had a very short lifespan. But he and many other leaders decided it was worth it to push for freedom and an end to racism. “No one really knows why they are alive until they know what they would die for” he once said. Indeed, he went as far as to say that “A man who won't die for something is not fit to live.”
And at the risk of self-aggrandizement, I have made the same judgment. This is not an academic issue for me. I decided to tell the truth about Brett Kimberlin and risk the consequences of angering a convicted terrorist. And regular readers of this site know that I have paid a significant price for it. He has cost my wife and I our jobs, attempted to frame me for a crime, gotten me arrested on false charges (subsequently dropped), put bogus peace orders on me abridging my freedom of speech (subsequently struck down) and I have been SWATted. And every time when I go out to my car, I check under it for bombs, like the ones he planted in Speedway, Indiana. Why? Because this fight is about freedom of expression and the right to receive counsel, and stopping a man who thinks nothing of attempting to destroy the lives of those who anger him and because I know if I don’t stop him he will just keep doing it. I have decided that some things are more valuable than just simply surviving and I put that belief to practice.
(And if you are not a regular reader and that last paragraph is news to you, read here.)
Which is not to put me in the same category as those greats. To pick one example, the danger I face is nothing compared to Dr. King. But that only drives home to me how shameful it would be not to fight. If Dr. King could stand up to the far more deadly terrorism of the KKK, how dare I refuse to stand up to a punk like Brett Kimberlin?
So there is nothing alien in our culture in the idea that some things are more valuable than life itself. Some of the greatest persons in history have put that belief into practice. And I have done the same in my own humble way.
“But,” you might protest, “it is one thing to advocate for giving your own life, or giving of the life of adults for freedom. But these are children.”
But do you think it would make a difference? Do you think the founders would have surrendered to the British if they only took twenty children hostage and threatened to kill them if we didn’t end our rebellion?
We know Dr. King wasn’t persuaded even by the murder of children. Four little girls were murdered when the 16th Street Baptist Church was bombed, and yet he didn’t tell people to call off the Civil Rights Movement. He didn’t say, “its not worth the lives of our children.” He said we had to keep fighting for freedom and equality or else those children would have died in vain. And often his organization put children on the front lines to face the dogs and the firehoses, not to mention how many times black children were placed directly in harm’s way by being asked to commit the courageous act of going to school—courageous and dangerous because they were doing so as the first black children to go to a specific white school. Dr. King and the Civil Rights Movement as a whole placed children in harm’s way all the time and when they died, it was not seen as a condemnation on their movement, but only on their killers, and rightly so.
And let’s not forget that children died on September 11, too. Al Qaeda has said that they attacked us because we were not Muslims. So, should we repeal the guarantee of religious freedom, declare Islam the official religion of America, and force everyone to convert? Would Piers Morgan declare that if it would save one child’s life, it is worth it? I don’t know what he would say, but even the vast majority of Muslims don’t want that.
So we aren’t willing to do anything, just to remain alive, are we? We sacrifice life—including the lives of children—for other values all the time.
And the bizarre thing is that normally liberals get that. Consider, for instance, the issue of how to interrogate prisoners. Any liberal who says he or she is against waterboarding is saying something is more important than our lives. And don’t let them lie to you and pretend that no good intelligence can be gathered this way. Leon Panetta himself has admitted that it probably helped us kill bin Laden himself. And it just makes no logical sense to deny that sometimes when you loosen their tongue they give good information, as I wrote back then:
But the most ridiculous claim is that it supposedly doesn’t work. Now of course pressuring anyone in any way to get a mere confession is of dubious value. Torturing a guy to say “I did it,” is unreliable. But if they are telling the truth, they can tell you things that are objectively verifiable. Consider, for instance, this classic scene from Dirty Harry:
[video no longer on youtube]
The context of the clip is this. The psychopath had buried a girl alive and claimed he would give the location of the girl (giving them the chance to save her) if they paid a ransom. They paid, with Eastwood delivering it, but the man refused to give the location, and so the torture in that scene followed [in which Eastwood literally tortures him until he tells us where the girl is buried]. So it was a “ticking bomb” scenario. Also, alluded to and not shown, they find the girl where the psycho said, but she was already dead. If memory serves she never had a chance of being saved in time.
Now if that hypothetical went to trial, the confession would be excluded from evidence (and in theory the body might be, too). Why? Not because it was unreliable. Even in isolation the mere fact he knew where the girl was buried was highly incriminating. But instead all of it, including the fact he knew where the body was, would be excluded on the theory that even then torture is not justified, and thus they wanted to remove an important incentive to police to engage in such conduct.
So let’s please stop the childish claim that waterboarding—hell, even torture—cannot be effective. And let’s instead have the adult conversation about whether we as a people believe it is morally justified and if so, when.
We all know that even outright torture can in fact work. And so if you oppose it—and I do indeed oppose true torture, I just don’t consider waterboarding to be true torture—you are saying that some things are worth sacrificing lives for, even that of innocent children.
And recently we have seen liberal opposition to the idea of armed school guards. Not all liberals, but many. The most common objection to this proposal (I mean, besides just plain blind opposition to anything coming from the NRA), is that somehow kids are psychologically damaged by seeing an armed officer. In a letter, the ACLU listed other reasons. For instance, it will “unnecessarily pushing students out of school and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems” because if the guards are police, they might arrest the students for crimes rather than letting principals handle it less severely. They go on to be concerned that various kinds of disproportionate impacts will result. Whatever the merits of what they said, there is no serious reason to think armed guards in a school wouldn’t make things safer. And yet they oppose these proposals. What happened to “if it would save one child’s life...?”
So to say “even if we save one child’s life it is worth it” is itself childish and simplistic thinking. Even if it was true that banning some or all guns would save some children—and that is a doubtful point—it is simply not the case that we will do absolutely everything to save lives, even the lives of children. Now and then we have decided that, on balance, it is better to have a chaos that occasionally kills people and the freedom that comes with it, rather than perfect security. Of course few people put it as baldly as saying that we sacrifice children for our freedom. We might not say it, but in fact we do it all the time.
And the Second Amendment is about our freedom. Yes, it preserves the ability of hunters to hunt, but that isn’t what it is about. And likewise it will protect a woman who is being stalked by an abusive ex, when the police can’t or won’t protect her, but that isn’t why it was so important to the founders. Consider those to be other good reasons for supporting it. The militia clause of the Second Amendment is inoperative, but it provides us a valuable clue as to why it exists: so we can continue to have our minutemen militias, for the preservation of free states—the states we live in and the United States of America. That is not just to save these entities just to save them, but to preserve their status as free states. It was certainly conceived in part to protect us from foreign enemies, but it was just as much to make it possible for us to resist tyranny here at home, should it ever arise.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: If you want to attack gun ownership in general, attack the real causes - illegal straw purchases, gun theft, and murder by male urban minorities. You can't legislate this kind of thing out of existence. Sorry.
So you're arguing that straw purchases, gun theft, and the high murder rate among urban minorities leads to a higher rate of gun ownership?
I apologize for my imperfect use of grammar.
My argument is that straw purchases, gun theft, and the high murder rate among urban minorities are far more important issues than negligent discharges at gun shows. There is nothing wrong with responsible, legal gun ownership. It's already illegal to use guns to commit crimes. Enforce the laws that exist and fix the cultural problems.
And, while the 2nd Amendment is not about personal defense per se, I do think that those issues I named above are all factors leading to a higher rate of personal gun ownership. Again, that wasn't really the point of the post .
AustonT wrote: Oh look dumb people did dumb things, color me suprised.
KingCracker wrote:
Responsible gun owners dont have accidents
That's not really true, accidents can happen to anyone; and do.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Why isnt there a basic intelligence test?
Do I really need to list the reasons you in particular shouldn't be calling for a basic intelligence test?
Accidents happen yes. Me driving and following road laws can still have a random drunk, someone on the phone, distracted person, come into my lane and cause an accident. Those are unavoidable. HOWEVER, firearm accidents is something that can easily be stopped by proper handling and use. My father has owned/shot firearms since he was 9. Guess how many accidents he has had? None. My Pawpaw, who was a Police Officer, lived to nearly 70, shooting since he was a young boy. Guess how many accidental shootings he has had? None. See my point?
AustonT wrote: Oh look dumb people did dumb things, color me suprised.
KingCracker wrote:
Responsible gun owners dont have accidents
That's not really true, accidents can happen to anyone; and do.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Why isnt there a basic intelligence test?
Do I really need to list the reasons you in particular shouldn't be calling for a basic intelligence test?
Accidents happen yes. Me driving and following road laws can still have a random drunk, someone on the phone, distracted person, come into my lane and cause an accident. Those are unavoidable. HOWEVER, firearm accidents is something that can easily be stopped by proper handling and use. My father has owned/shot firearms since he was 9. Guess how many accidents he has had? None. My Pawpaw, who was a Police Officer, lived to nearly 70, shooting since he was a young boy. Guess how many accidental shootings he has had? None. See my point?
Ooh don't get me started on road accidents. In the last two months my car was: 1) rear ended by an illegal alien without insurance at night, upon exiting I was surrounded by his homies until I put a pistol on the roof of my car to motivate them to back off; 2) a pack of coyotes ran across 290 (again at night) and one smeared my car for $3,100 damage. I have been shooting since Annie Oakley was around. The only accidental shootings I have or even seen have been people putting rounds into the ground below their tagret due to light triggers.
Bullockist wrote: I'm still trying to figure out why people need guns in the first place. feth it, I am going to buy an illegal pistol and next time there's a massacre in Aus and i'm in the locale , i can loose off a few panicked shots to help the situation. Of course , not all humans are like me and get panic/shock most of em have a Bruce Willis gene , which allows them to react rationally in an irrational situation.
Or you could pull your head from your cheeks about situations and training you don't know about, move to the United States, purchase a legal handgun, apply for a concealed carry permit, take the mandatory carry class, and if you're smart and responsible, as most gun owners are, learn, practice and prepare for such a situation where you might need to defend yourself you'll be ready and have already walked through how to respond.
better yet, don't move to the US. Your flag denotes no amazing cuisine you would be bringing. No one should be admitted unless they can bring the next dinner sensation! Under an enlightened Frazzled administration, if you can't bake cookies, you're not getting off Ellis Island!
And see those accidentals were coming from a modded firearm. That would be just as shocking as giving a new driver the keys to the Corvette and he later introduces it to a tree
d-usa wrote: You can fight illegal straw men purchases by passing legislation that allows the ATF to track where guns used in crime are purchased from to track where straw men are getting their guns.
Well several thousand came from sellers ordered to do so by Holders DOJ... (sorry couldn't resist) But yes, I'm down with that. I'm down with htat for drugs too, but then that would actually put a dent in it wouldn't it.
Mattman154 wrote: Too bad it's racist to point out that black people are more likely to commit crime.
Not just racist, but incredibly stupid, as it shows a fundamental lack of understanding on how to interpret and analyze data.
Its not racist. Its accurate and an absolute stain on the USA's reputation. Death rates from murder are substantially higher in the black community. When I was in LA I knew people who thought murder on a daily basis was normal. A study came out a few years back, that it is more likely for a black male to be killed or be in prison than go to college.
Don't hide it, face it, and face why. We've lost generations now. The decline of the northern manufacturing sector. The rise of the drug empires and the Justice Industrial complex. The rise of a music culture that celebrates criminals. Thats just a few.
Frazzled wrote: Death rates from murder are substantially higher in the black community.
Which isn't the same thing as equating being black with being a criminal. Pretending that black people are just inherently more prone to criminal activity is at best an extremely shallow analysis, and at worst, racist. It ignores reams of data about why these things happen, as well as that other ethnicities in the same areas tend to have the same levels of criminal activity. Being stuck in poverty leads to more crime and violence, not ethnicity. Urban poor in other countries where there are hardly any black people, or urban poor white or Asian neighborhoods tend to be just as problematic. A ghetto is a ghetto anywhere, not just in the US, and not only when it is populated mainly by one ethnicity.
Frazzled wrote: Death rates from murder are substantially higher in the black community.
Which isn't the same thing as equating being black with being a criminal. Pretending that black people are just inherently more prone to criminal activity is at best an extremely shallow analysis, and at worst, racist. It ignores reams of data about why these things happen, as well as that other ethnicities in the same areas tend to have the same levels of criminal activity. Being stuck in poverty leads to more crime and violence, not ethnicity. Urban poor in other countries where there are hardly any black people, or urban poor white or Asian neighborhoods tend to be just as problematic. A ghetto is a ghetto anywhere, not just in the US, and not only when it is populated mainly by one ethnicity.
Who's equating black with being a criminal? I'm saying the black community suffers disproportionately from high levels of crime and violence. Just letting the problem continue just lets the murders continue. Are other iner city groups impacted? Sure are. Deal with the problem.
There were 500 murders in Chicago last year. Most of those were blacks killing blacks. Instead of saying "other cities have that problem" (they don't) or "its racist!" (it isn't) the problem needs to be solved.
I think what Fraz is trying to say is simply that black people in the US are, currently, more likely to be involved in crime and that something should be done about it. He's not arguing that they're more involved in crime by virtue of being black.
Or I could be wrong and it's an argument about potatoes.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I think what Fraz is trying to say is simply that black people in the US are, currently, more likely to be involved in crime and that something should be done about it. He's not arguing that they're more involved in crime by virtue of being black.
Or I could be wrong and it's an argument about potatoes.
Yes, and I'd postulate poor black people, have a disproportionate chance of being the victim or involved in a crime. Ahtman is right also in that innner city regions typically have higher crime rates which is a major factor. Although I disagree in that some cities are far worse than others, and the differences should be examined for potential reasons and methods to mitigate this.
Certainly you have good intentions Ouze, but the original post in this thread is a prime example of what has been called innumeracy.
You present the fact that there were 5 people injured in three separate incidents on Gun Appreciation Day, spread across 3 states. At the risk of making light of no doubt very strongly held concerns, this number... is simply not meaningful.
How many people attended local gun shows, GAD events and so on where they sold, bought, used or otherwise came in contact with firearms? If it was 50 people, then rate of injury is unacceptably high, 1 in 10. Was it 50 people across the country? Or was it 500,000 (1 in 100,000)? or 50,000 (1 in 10,000)? This was a national event, with activities all over the country; how many accidents would one expect from activities that you would classify as "safe"?
It's a simple fact of large numbers: with huge numbers of events, the likelihood of even very infrequent occurrences increases.
People in this thread have remarked that there should be licensing requirements, or other modes of restriction, without seeming to pause to ask a) is there a need for such things? Or b) would such restrictions be legally/morally tenable?
A) Is vitally important: before addressing the Constitutional or other limitations, the nature of the problem must first be diagnosed. Simply put, if the question is based on fatal injuries, there doesn't appear to be much of a problem with firearms.
If that seems strange, consider the following according to CDC statistics:
-In 2010, there were 606 fatal accidental firearm deaths (~1.7/day).
-In 2010, there were 3,782 unintentional drowning deaths (~10/day).
-In 2010, there were 35,332 fatal motor vehicle accidents (~97/day).
By way of comparison, in 2004 it was reported that acetaminophen overdoses "cause[d] more than 450 deaths due to acute liver failure each year in the United States" (~1.2/day).
Of course, it is proper to ask, what is the context for these numbers? If 606 deaths where caused by 500,000 firearms, then that is a high rate of injury (a bit over 1 per 1000). It is not; it;s generally accepted that there are ~300,000,000 firearms in the US (~2 accidental deaths per million firearms). There are an estimated ~250,000,000 passenger motor vehicles in the US, so that 35,332 translates to a bit above 1 per 10,000. Automobiles are two orders of magnitude more likely then firearms to be involved in accidental deaths.
For further comparison, over the last ten years, an average of ~30 children under 9 were killed by falling televisions and appliances each year. In 2010, 36 children under 9 were killed in firearm accidents. Just as accidents with appliances can be minimized/eliminated with proper safety considerations, so with proper training firearms can be owned safely. If you have a gun, you should familiarize yourself with basic principles, and parents should look into programs such as the NRA's Eddie Eagle Program for introducing their children into responsible firearms use.
As for b), the simple fact is that the US is the US, not the UK or Canada or France or Mali. While that is tautological, it's also important: the citizens of other countries endure restrictions of their liberties that Americans (by and large) will not, for reasons that Americans often don't understand or agree with.
Snrub wrote: Who carries a loaded shotgun around in a bag anyway? Foolishness.
Idiots thats who. My Uncle Dave does the same thing. And heres a funny story, he nearly shot his penis off while cleaning a revolver............................ (is that enough periods to give the effect needed?) apparently he thought it was unloaded. Ive told this story many times on here, but the sheer amount if fething stupid just shines
Responsible gun owners dont have accidents
What kind of ing idiot points a revolver at his crotch????
Of course, it is proper to ask, what is the context for these numbers? If 606 deaths where caused by 500,000 firearms, then that is a high rate of injury (a bit over 1 per 1000). It is not; it;s generally accepted that there are ~300,000,000 firearms in the US (~2 accidental deaths per million firearms). There are an estimated ~250,000,000 passenger motor vehicles in the US, so that 35,332 translates to a bit above 1 per 10,000. Automobiles are two orders of magnitude more likely then firearms to be involved in accidental deaths.
In order to compare two physically distinct items you have to establish a neutral means of comparison. Time of use would work here, but I doubt there are readily available statistics regarding time engaged in gun use.
Snrub wrote: Who carries a loaded shotgun around in a bag anyway? Foolishness.
Idiots thats who. My Uncle Dave does the same thing. And heres a funny story, he nearly shot his penis off while cleaning a revolver............................ (is that enough periods to give the effect needed?) apparently he thought it was unloaded. Ive told this story many times on here, but the sheer amount if fething stupid just shines
Responsible gun owners dont have accidents
What kind of ing idiot points a revolver at his crotch????
Find this soooo funny. The beatnicks who still wants these murder sticks around are now shooting each other by accident when there trying to appreciate them HAHAHAHAHA.
Poppabear wrote: Find this soooo funny. The beatnicks who still wants these murder sticks around are now shooting each other by accident when there trying to appreciate them HAHAHAHAHA.
OMG, my thighs.
What are you doing that accidental shootings make your thighs hurt?
Poppabear wrote: Find this soooo funny. The beatnicks who still wants these murder sticks around are now shooting each other by accident when there trying to appreciate them HAHAHAHAHA.
OMG, my thighs.
What are you doing that accidental shootings make your thighs hurt?
Might have been an "accidental shooting", if you know what I mean...
Well, I didn't see any sort of bad behavior over the weekend in my area.
Poppabear wrote: Find this soooo funny. The beatnicks who still wants these murder sticks around are now shooting each other by accident when there trying to appreciate them HAHAHAHAHA.
It says quite a lot about a person who finds humor in people being injured - none if it good.
Breotan wrote: Well, I didn't see any sort of bad behavior over the weekend in my area.
Poppabear wrote: Find this soooo funny. The beatnicks who still wants these murder sticks around are now shooting each other by accident when there trying to appreciate them HAHAHAHAHA.
It says quite a lot about a person who finds humor in people being injured - none if it good.
He's either trolling or ... Well I just hope he's being that dumb on purpose
I think it's just brilliant that so many conservatives are now arguing that we need to fix the cultural and economic problems that drive crime rates up. Good oh then, seems now everyone is on board with income equality so let's stop talking about guns and start talking about getting that minimum wage up to $15 and giving everyone free access to college.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: It says quite a lot about a person who finds humor in people being injured - none if it good.
Yeah, because the internet has always taken a strong stance against laughing at the misfortune of strangers.
That kind of moralising is just the weakest, laziest kind of way to try and make your argument.
sebster wrote: I think it's just brilliant that so many conservatives are now arguing that we need to fix the cultural and economic problems that drive crime rates up. Good oh then, seems now everyone is on board with income equality so let's stop talking about guns and start talking about getting that minimum wage up to $15 and giving everyone free access to college.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: It says quite a lot about a person who finds humor in people being injured - none if it good.
Yeah, because the internet has always taken a strong stance against laughing at misfortune of strangers.
Stop the moralising.
Change entitlement first... *ducks, waves, then runs!*
sebster wrote: I think it's just brilliant that so many conservatives are now arguing that we need to fix the cultural and economic problems that drive crime rates up. Good oh then, seems now everyone is on board with income equality so let's stop talking about guns and start talking about getting that minimum wage up to $15 and giving everyone free access to college.
So Obama's plan wasn't to fake his birth to become President in order to take our guns away for the UN? Instead it was his plan to fake his birth, become president, then use our fear of the UN thugs and our love for guns in order to push his liberal agenda!
sebster wrote: I think it's just brilliant that so many conservatives are now arguing that we need to fix the cultural and economic problems that drive crime rates up. Good oh then, seems now everyone is on board with income equality so let's stop talking about guns and start talking about getting that minimum wage up to $15 and giving everyone free access to college.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: It says quite a lot about a person who finds humor in people being injured - none if it good.
Yeah, because the internet has always taken a strong stance against laughing at misfortune of strangers.
That kind of moralising is just the weakest, laziest kind of way to try and make your argument.
So Obama's plan wasn't to fake his birth to become President in order to take our guns away for the UN? Instead it was his plan to fake his birth, become president, then use our fear of the UN thugs and our love for guns in order to push his liberal agenda!
er...wait wut?
Wierdos spreading this crap on your Facebook wall?
Of course, it is proper to ask, what is the context for these numbers? If 606 deaths where caused by 500,000 firearms, then that is a high rate of injury (a bit over 1 per 1000). It is not; it;s generally accepted that there are ~300,000,000 firearms in the US (~2 accidental deaths per million firearms). There are an estimated ~250,000,000 passenger motor vehicles in the US, so that 35,332 translates to a bit above 1 per 10,000. Automobiles are two orders of magnitude more likely then firearms to be involved in accidental deaths.
In order to compare two physically distinct items you have to establish a neutral means of comparison. Time of use would work here, but I doubt there are readily available statistics regarding time engaged in gun use.
While that is a good point, the problem, as in comparing, say, acetaminophen and pools, is that such disparate things cannot easily be classified into durations of "use". With regards to firearms, it's very difficult to define such use: I have on my desk at the moment a .32, is it in use? Is a shotgun loaded and kept by the bed for an eventuality the homeowner hopes never arrives, in use? It is worth pointing out that the original post did not deal with firearms being used at a range, but stored and transported haphazardly.
A better way of looking at things is that both firearms, automobiles and acetaminophen are ubiquitous. That is, they are sufficiently wide spread that availability does not fundamentally contribute to the statistics. Compare to, say, a venomous cobra.
If one were to say that cobras kill only 5 Americans per year, it would not indicate that they are safe, as (presumably) venomous cobras are vanishingly rare in the USA.
d-usa wrote: So Obama's plan wasn't to fake his birth to become President in order to take our guns away for the UN? Instead it was his plan to fake his birth, become president, then use our fear of the UN thugs and our love for guns in order to push his liberal agenda!
Finally his socialist muslim agenda becomes clear!
While that is a good point, the problem, as in comparing, say, acetaminophen and pools, is that such disparate things cannot easily be classified into durations of "use".
With regards to firearms, it's very difficult to define such use: I have on my desk at the moment a .32, is it in use? Is a shotgun loaded and kept by the bed for an eventuality the homeowner hopes never arrives, in use?
Cars and guns aren't related in the manner that acetaminophen and pools are. Indeed, pools are more like both cars and guns than acetaminophen is like any of the three.
You could be said to use a pool if you were swimming in it. You could be said to use a car if you were driving it. You could be said to use a gun if you were firing it. But the only manner in which you could be said to use acetaminophen is if you were consuming it. In the case of the former 3, use ends when the behavior ceases. In the last case use continues after consumption.
A better way of looking at things is that both firearms, automobiles and acetaminophen are ubiquitous. That is, they are sufficiently wide spread that availability does not fundamentally contribute to the statistics.
They are ubiquitous in the United States, but when the US is compared to otherwise similar nations the greater prevalence of firearms correlates positively with firearm crime.
Seaward wrote: Driver's licenses prevent people who quite simply lack the knowledge of traffic laws, or have physical disabilities that prevent them from driving safely, from driving a vehicle, but they do nothing at all to prevent people who meet basic requirements from making stupid decisions or even stupid mistakes. I'm not sure why people think it would be any different with guns, save for simply not having actually spent any time considering it.
So what you're saying is, people who lack the knowledge of gun laws (lets include safety here) or have disabilities that prevent them from using a gun safely, should be able to have and to use a gun anyway?
dogma wrote: They are ubiquitous in the United States, but when the US is compared to otherwise similar nations the greater prevalence of firearms correlates positively with firearm crime.
And when gun restrictions are tightened in those countries, deaths from firearms (homicide, suicide, accidental and lawful) all decrease. Ultimately this isn't something that can be debated.
There are plenty of decent points that can be debated (why it won't work in America, and that the death toll sucks but it doesn't justify people losing their use of firearms, among others), but the basic reality that tighter gun controls means less guns which means less death by guns is just something that is known, and well established. But, the quality of this debate being as woeful as it is, it seems most of the time gets sucked up on the nonsense about gun control not impacting the rates of death by gun.
Breotan wrote: Well, I didn't see any sort of bad behavior over the weekend in my area.
Poppabear wrote: Find this soooo funny. The beatnicks who still wants these murder sticks around are now shooting each other by accident when there trying to appreciate them HAHAHAHAHA.
It says quite a lot about a person who finds humor in people being injured - none if it good.
He's either trolling or ... Well I just hope he's being that dumb on purpose
Its PoppaBear, pretty much everything he types is troll BS. So just continue as normal
Kaldor wrote: So what you're saying is, people who lack the knowledge of gun laws (lets include safety here) or have disabilities that prevent them from using a gun safely, should be able to have and to use a gun anyway?
The overwhelming majority of gun laws have nothing at all to do with safety, so let's not include safety, no.
And yeah. I have no problem with someone being able to buy a revolver in Virginia despite the fact that they don't know the first thing about NFA weapons, or the import laws in Pennsylvania. It's sort of like how I got my driver's license despite not knowing the very limited circumstance under which you can make a left turn on red in the Commonwealth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: There are plenty of decent points that can be debated (why it won't work in America, and that the death toll sucks but it doesn't justify people losing their use of firearms, among others), but the basic reality that tighter gun controls means less guns which means less death by guns is just something that is known, and well established. But, the quality of this debate being as woeful as it is, it seems most of the time gets sucked up on the nonsense about gun control not impacting the rates of death by gun.
It can be debated, actually. Point me out a country that has imposed tighter gun controls with a gun per person rate of...oh, say, over 50, and seen gun violence decline, and then you might have some proof that it's a "basic reality."
Because we have seen the exact opposite in the United States. Tighter gun laws have led to either no change in crime rates or a worsening of crime.
Seaward wrote: Because we have seen the exact opposite in the United States.
Part of our national character is extreme paranoia (about just about anything) though, which a lot of other countries don't have as a major trait. You add that to our braggadocio and you have a heady mix of guns, paranoia, and arrogance. We obliviously have good points in our national character as well, but this isn't a pros and cons list, and I just like to type braggadocio.
Seaward wrote: Because we have seen the exact opposite in the United States.
Part of our national character is extreme paranoia (about just about anything) though, which a lot of other countries don't have as a major trait. You add that to our braggadocio and you have a heady mix of guns, paranoia, and arrogance. We obliviously have good points in our national character as well, but this isn't a pros and cons list, and I just like to type braggadocio.
Seaward wrote: Because we have seen the exact opposite in the United States.
Part of our national character is extreme paranoia (about just about anything) though, which a lot of other countries don't have as a major trait. You add that to our braggadocio and you have a heady mix of guns, paranoia, and arrogance. We obliviously have good points in our national character as well, but this isn't a pros and cons list, and I just like to type braggadocio.
That's actually a distinction I think that gets ignored quite a bit.
For instance, many of us have a healthy dose of skepticism that our government does things in our best interests.
Seaward wrote: It can be debated, actually. Point me out a country that has imposed tighter gun controls with a gun per person rate of...oh, say, over 50, and seen gun violence decline, and then you might have some proof that it's a "basic reality."
Inventing little reasons to dismiss the greater international experience is one of the classic ways of hiding from statistical findings.
"Oh sure, it worked everywhere else, but it will never work here because we have more guns per person. I mean sure, there's never been any indication in any study that effectiveness reduces as the number of guns pre-ban increases, but I still choose to believe that, and believe it is enough to reject any international results."
Total fething bs.
Because we have seen the exact opposite in the United States. Tighter gun laws have led to either no change in crime rates or a worsening of crime.
Because in a country with completely open state borders state by state legislation is meaningless.
sebster wrote: Inventing little reasons to dismiss the greater international experience is one of the classic ways of hiding from statistical findings.
"Oh sure, it worked everywhere else, but it will never work here because we have more guns per person. I mean sure, there's never been any indication in any study that effectiveness reduces as the number of guns pre-ban increases, but I still choose to believe that, and believe it is enough to reject any international results."
Total fething bs.
I always find it amusing that countries with smaller populations than California are convinced their one-size-fits-all solutions will work over here. I find it incredibly naive, but hey, you're convinced, and that's all that matters.
Because in a country with completely open state borders state by state legislation is meaningless.
About as meaningless as a federal ban or registration scheme in a country with 250+ million firearms and nowhere near even the prayer of enough money or manpower to actually enforce any of it.
Seaward wrote: I always find it amusing that countries with smaller populations than California are convinced their one-size-fits-all solutions will work over here. I find it incredibly naive, but hey, you're convinced, and that's all that matters.
Seriously dude, your reading is just getting worse. Here is a quote from my post that you originally replied to; "There are plenty of decent points that can be debated (why it won't work in America, and that the death toll sucks but it doesn't justify people losing their use of firearms, among others)"
It's the first damn sentence that you quoted, for feth's sake.
So now that we've established, once again, that you don't read posts that you're replying to and live in your own little world of Seaward's imaginary debates, I guess it's up to me to point out, once again, that there are decent points to be made about why policy enacted in other countries won't work in the US. And that's a debate worth having.
But there is no debate to be had over the idea that banning and restricting guns will lead to a fall in deaths by firearms.
Seaward wrote: I always find it amusing that countries with smaller populations than California are convinced their one-size-fits-all solutions will work over here. I find it incredibly naive, but hey, you're convinced, and that's all that matters.
Seriously dude, your reading is just getting worse. Here is a quote from my post that you originally replied to;
"There are plenty of decent points that can be debated (why it won't work in America, and that the death toll sucks but it doesn't justify people losing their use of firearms, among others)"
It's the first damn sentence that you quoted, for feth's sake.
So now that we've established, once again, that you don't read posts that you're replying to and live in your own little world of Seaward's imaginary debates, I guess it's up to me to point out, once again, that there are decent points to be made about why policy enacted in other countries won't work in the US. And that's a debate worth having.
But there is no debate to be had over the idea that banning and restricting guns will lead to a fall in deaths by firearms.
hello.. i live in southern california... here the mexican cartels are a real threat just across the border, their operations here are kept at bay by 1. a police force that is not in their pocket and 2. A (rather) heavily armed population that will not be bullied ( unlike Mexico's which has heavily restrictive gun laws that SOMEHOW dont affect the criminals) There is a debate to be had there.... and while i respect you i had to bring this up to show the precarious situation of the Southwest and how banning and restricting guns will lead to even more deaths here....
So, just to play Devil's Advocate, an extrajudicial armed mob that arrests people because they believe the arrested persons are a part of a criminal network, trampling all over the few scraps of the right to due process remaining?
So, just to play Devil's Advocate, an extrajudicial armed mob that arrests people because they believe the arrested persons are a part of a criminal network, trampling all over the few scraps of the right to due process remaining?
Northern Mexico is a defacto warzone. More then 45,000 deaths in the last 5 years. Some estimates range up to 100,000 people. The police are either working with the cartels, or being killed by them. The military isn't being very effective against them. In many portions of Mexico (including the state bordering California) this is the closest thing there is to law anymore.
It really is a shame that there isn't more of a media spotlight on the region. With death tolls that rival Iraq and Afghanistan, it's a full on war right on the US border.
sebster wrote: But there is no debate to be had over the idea that banning and restricting guns will lead to a fall in deaths by firearms.
There absolutely is when it comes to death by homicide, yes. That will not change despite your usual tactic of repeating something until people stop listening to you.
I like how Sebster is arguing against facts given by the FBI to be true, that here, more armed citizens = less crime in any form. Yet he lives in a country that did just what he is saying we should do, and the crime rates fething exploded skywards. Home invations, armed robberies, violent crimes you name it. Odd too, because this is the same cookie cutter thing that has happened in other countries that have done the same thing *coughUKcough* Just saying. Id love it if people that are against us having our firearms, to actually do more then watch Peirs Morgan and get their facts from him
Ahtman wrote: Stop projecting and give a sound argument.
If you're having issues comprehending my very simple argument, I'm happy to rephrase it. Just tell me what's challenging and I'll say it a different way.
Claims that we have verifiable evidence that banning guns outright would result in a drop in firearms homicides in this country because it - arguably - worked for some Commonwealth countries that have done it in all but name are simply disingenuous. Neither Britain nor Australia had anywhere near the number of guns per capita we have, and more to the point, probably not even a tenth of the illegal guns per capita.
Suicides by firearm would decline, certainly, as would fatal firearm accidents, but no one's up in arms about getting guns off the streets because of suicide. I'd say that's a poor argument, anyway, as I'm of the opinion you've got the right to kill yourself if you so choose. The focus of all of this proposed legislation, and the movement behind it, is firearm crime. The notion that the illegal gun supply in this country, or a committed citizen's availability to access an illegal firearm, would dry up simply due to a ban is as ludicrous as it comes.
Ahtman wrote: Stop projecting and give a sound argument.
If you're having issues comprehending my very simple argument, I'm happy to rephrase it. Just tell me what's challenging and I'll say it a different way.
So says the king of ad hominem, whose response to a call to stop going after the poster...is to go after the poster. And yet, still no real argument with support, just insults and an unearned sense of superiority. You are now probably everything you hate in other people. Way to go.
Exsqueezeme? I'm on my phone so can't go get the official crime reports (yet again in a thread about gun control I might add) but our crime rates didn't explode when we banned hand guns - it has been steadily dropping or maintained for quite some time...
I also add that our violent crime stats include crimes that are not counted as 'violent crimes' in the USA. Perhaps because we as a nation are not as desensetised to violence as the US. Not having monthly mass killings probably does that to you as a nation after a while. Don't worry, if you can't look after yourselves, you could always ask the grown ups to give you a hand
Exsqueezeme? I'm on my phone so can't go get the official crime reports (yet again in a thread about gun control I might add) but our crime rates didn't explode when we banned hand guns - it has been steadily dropping or maintained for quite some time...
Wow, that's funny. Our murder rate has been steadily dropping since the 90s and we didn't even have to ban handguns.
Depending on who you read, I like Freakonomics too, but some people strongly dispute those findings. I'd personally say it's one of many factors, and they have found in a lot of areas that improved concealed carry laws (such as actually allowing it) does effectively reduce crime.
Over all US crime rates have been dropping significantly and consistently for quite awhile now. Longer then just the 90s
The people that dispute the findings aren't disputing the effect in general, just the extent - the harshest critic says the effect was only half as significant as claimed, which in any event is still pretty major regardless of who is right.
Seaward wrote: There absolutely is when it comes to death by homicide, yes. That will not change despite your usual tactic of repeating something until people stop listening to you.
No, seriously, numbers are real things that tell people things about the real world. And this area has been extensively studied.
I mean, I know I'm basically wasting my time telling you this because you couldn't even get through the first sentence of mine you were quoting, so the odds of you going and reading about this are basically zero, but the point still remains, whether you can be bothered learning it or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KingCracker wrote: I like how Sebster is arguing against facts given by the FBI to be true, that here, more armed citizens = less crime in any form. Yet he lives in a country that did just what he is saying we should do, and the crime rates fething exploded skywards. Home invations, armed robberies, violent crimes you name it.
Actually, those are complete lies told by the NRA. Crime hasn't exploded, it's continued its steady decline like in all developed countries. Whereas crimes committed with firearms, and more specifically murders and suicides by firearms have dropped markedly.
Seriously, the numbers aren't even hard to find. Go to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Learn. Realise the NRA are liars who'll tell you any old gak to sell their argument. Then stop listening to them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Claims that we have verifiable evidence that banning guns outright would result in a drop in firearms homicides in this country because it - arguably - worked for some Commonwealth countries that have done it in all but name are simply disingenuous. Neither Britain nor Australia had anywhere near the number of guns per capita we have, and more to the point, probably not even a tenth of the illegal guns per capita.
Which are all arguments about why the effect would be less, or why it is not a viable political goal in the US, but is absolutely idiotic as a defence that it wouldn't lower murders by firearm. It isn't a complicated bit of maths, you know. When you ban guns the supply of guns reduces... this cannot be debated. The amount might not be material (certainly given the stockpile of guns in the US it is unlikely to material in the short term). When there are less guns available, they are used less.
Suicides by firearm would decline, certainly, as would fatal firearm accidents, but no one's up in arms about getting guns off the streets because of suicide. I'd say that's a poor argument, anyway, as I'm of the opinion you've got the right to kill yourself if you so choose.
And so now we can add mental health as another topic you know nothing about, but decided to form an opinion on anyway.
Exsqueezeme? I'm on my phone so can't go get the official crime reports (yet again in a thread about gun control I might add) but our crime rates didn't explode when we banned hand guns - it has been steadily dropping or maintained for quite some time...
Wow, that's funny. Our murder rate has been steadily dropping since the 90s and we didn't even have to ban handguns.
Although that isn't the point being made - rather that banning guns in the UK caused an 'explosion' in violent crime... Which it didn't... In any way shape or form. Much like it didn't in australia or any other developed country so far reportedly now buried under bodies and spent bullets.
SilverMK2 wrote: Although that isn't the point being made - rather that banning guns in the UK caused an 'explosion' in violent crime... Which it didn't... In any way shape or form. Much like it didn't in australia or any other developed country so far reportedly now buried under bodies and spent bullets.
Exsqueezeme? I'm on my phone so can't go get the official crime reports (yet again in a thread about gun control I might add) but our crime rates didn't explode when we banned hand guns - it has been steadily dropping or maintained for quite some time...
Wow, that's funny. Our murder rate has been steadily dropping since the 90s and we didn't even have to ban handguns.
Exsqueezeme? I'm on my phone so can't go get the official crime reports (yet again in a thread about gun control I might add) but our crime rates didn't explode when we banned hand guns - it has been steadily dropping or maintained for quite some time...
Wow, that's funny. Our murder rate has been steadily dropping since the 90s and we didn't even have to ban handguns.
Your gun murder rate has been increasing, though.
I don't have the numbers on me to confirm or deny that, but doesn't that make sense? Especially considering the increasing militarization of the police force and the continued ramping up of the war on drugs, cop on bad guy and bad guy on bad guy. So I kinda fail to see how it matters to be honest. The murder rate's falling over all along with violent crime in general.
Exsqueezeme? I'm on my phone so can't go get the official crime reports (yet again in a thread about gun control I might add) but our crime rates didn't explode when we banned hand guns - it has been steadily dropping or maintained for quite some time...
Wow, that's funny. Our murder rate has been steadily dropping since the 90s and we didn't even have to ban handguns.
Your gun murder rate has been increasing, though.
Actually, per the CDC, the rate has been dropping. While the bare numbers might be increasing, per capita their dropping because of the growth of our population. Almost my a whole 1 per 100,000 between 2000 and 2010.
If you want to just compare bare numbers though, then you from the UK have no footing to stand on with your near doubling of gun crime rates in that same time period.
sebster wrote: But there is no debate to be had over the idea that banning and restricting guns will lead to a fall in deaths by firearms.
There absolutely is when it comes to death by homicide, yes. That will not change despite your usual tactic of repeating something until people stop listening to you.
Exsqueezeme? I'm on my phone so can't go get the official crime reports (yet again in a thread about gun control I might add) but our crime rates didn't explode when we banned hand guns - it has been steadily dropping or maintained for quite some time...
Wow, that's funny. Our murder rate has been steadily dropping since the 90s and we didn't even have to ban handguns.
Your gun murder rate has been increasing, though.
Thats just because we're lazy and would rather shoot you then beat you with a stick. America HURR!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Clearly the only solution is more armed security at gun shows. People need protection.
I blame video games and not enough nudity on television.
Actually, those are complete lies told by the NRA. Crime hasn't exploded, it's continued its steady decline like in all developed countries. Whereas crimes committed with firearms, and more specifically murders and suicides by firearms have dropped markedly.
Seriously, the numbers aren't even hard to find. Go to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Learn. Realise the NRA are liars who'll tell you any old gak to sell their argument. Then stop listening to them.
Right, so your gun crime went down. Notice I said CRIME. Not gun crime. And I wasnt using NRA facts, it was from a multitude of OTHER sites and sources that same pretty similar things. Your CRIME has shot up. Violent crime, robberies, home invasions and so on. Just like the UK did as well, which is why I mentioned the UK earlier.
Exsqueezeme? I'm on my phone so can't go get the official crime reports (yet again in a thread about gun control I might add) but our crime rates didn't explode when we banned hand guns - it has been steadily dropping or maintained for quite some time...
I also add that our violent crime stats include crimes that are not counted as 'violent crimes' in the USA. Perhaps because we as a nation are not as desensetised to violence as the US. Not having monthly mass killings probably does that to you as a nation after a while. Don't worry, if you can't look after yourselves, you could always ask the grown ups to give you a hand
I am going to keep a running tally in my signature about how comparing the UK violent crime rate to the US violent crime rate is fething stupid, because they are measured completely different.
It's like saying that the UK has more biscuits than the US because they eat more cookies than we eat bread.
Again, we count a lot of crimes in our violent crime stats that others don't. We also have a much higher rate of crime reporting.
And look at the actual crime reports or some of the official stats bodies rather than the bloody daily mail... Hell, even wikipedia is better than fox news light.
Again, on my phone so can't really post anything official, but from what I remember, the daily fail report is entirely inaccurate and misleading, as per usual. That is why no UK poster will ever cite the daily mail as a reputable source.
d-usa wrote: I am going to keep a running tally in my signature about how comparing the UK violent crime rate to the US violent crime rate is fething stupid, because they are measured completely different.
It's like saying that the UK has more buscuits than the US because they eat more cookies than we eat bread.
It is getting sort of boring seeing people keep using that. The amount of times it's been corrected in so many threads these people have read, and they still say it is amazing.
Exsqueezeme? I'm on my phone so can't go get the official crime reports (yet again in a thread about gun control I might add) but our crime rates didn't explode when we banned hand guns - it has been steadily dropping or maintained for quite some time...
Wow, that's funny. Our murder rate has been steadily dropping since the 90s and we didn't even have to ban handguns.
Your gun murder rate has been increasing, though.
I don't have the numbers on me to confirm or deny that, but doesn't that make sense? Especially considering the increasing militarization of the police force and the continued ramping up of the war on drugs, cop on bad guy and bad guy on bad guy. So I kinda fail to see how it matters to be honest. The murder rate's falling over all along with violent crime in general.
Actually it turns out your crime rate is well up since the 1960s, when you have a lot fewer guns.
Kilkrazy, are we looking at the same tables? Look at the rate per 100,000 in the population. Through the 70's, 80's, and 90's, crime was far higher than it is today.
Low crime in the 60's probably had more to do with population density, culture, and the population makeup as a whole. There were half as many people living in the US at the time.
Interesting how, starting in the late 80's we started seeing proliferation throughout the States of Right to Carry laws. More guns in civilians' hands, coinciding nicely with that reduction in crime rate from the 90's into 00's.
NuggzTheNinja wrote:Kilkrazy, are we looking at the same tables? Look at the rate per 100,000 in the population. Through the 70's, 80's, and 90's, crime was far higher than it is today.
Low crime in the 60's probably had more to do with population density, culture, and the population makeup as a whole. There were half as many people living in the US at the time.
Interesting how, starting in the late 80's we started seeing proliferation throughout the States of Right to Carry laws. More guns in civilians' hands, coinciding nicely with that reduction in crime rate from the 90's into 00's.
Or maybe the crack epidemic of the 1980s had subsided slightly. But, y'know, whatever conclusion about causation you want to jump to.
azazel the cat wrote: Or maybe the crack epidemic of the 1980s had subsided slightly. But, y'know, whatever conclusion about causation you want to jump to.
Wait.
Hold the phone.
Are you suggesting that homicide rates in this country might be tied to the illegal drug trade in some way? Preposterous.
azazel the cat wrote: Or maybe the crack epidemic of the 1980s had subsided slightly. But, y'know, whatever conclusion about causation you want to jump to.
Wait.
Hold the phone.
Are you suggesting that homicide rates in this country might be tied to the illegal drug trade in some way? Preposterous.
Guns make you kill. Simple as that.
You are clearly not paying attention, sir. The very article that sparked this thread has demonstrated that guns will try to kill with or without your help. The only defense against those guns, is to use different guns, to shoot the guns that try to kill on their own.
KingCracker wrote: Right, so your gun crime went down. Notice I said CRIME. Not gun crime. And I wasnt using NRA facts, it was from a multitude of OTHER sites and sources that same pretty similar things. Your CRIME has shot up. Violent crime, robberies, home invasions and so on. Just like the UK did as well, which is why I mentioned the UK earlier.
You didn't read the link, did you?
Anyhow, the claim that crime has shot up is so far exaggerated it's just stupid. There is, in some categories of crime, a broad trend showing a slight increase. And you can see the origins for these trends in all kinds of other indicators (areas with generational poverty, school drop outs etc). Linking it to guns is just crazy pants stuff. You would have read that if you'd read the link.
Anyhow, looking past a gun homicide rate that's about 40 times our, because we have a slight long term increase in home break-ins, is about as bizarre as things get.
No, guns make it easier to kill. Which means given the existance of issues, like drug trafficking, or the fact that you neighbour is a complete donkey-cave who needs to get taught a lesson, then having a tool around that makes killing easier means it will happen more often.
I saw a story where a man was shot by a turkey he shot and bagged in the off season
put the gun next to the bag in the trunk
turkey foot got out, gripped loaded gun
bang
man shot in leg, turkey lives
NuggzTheNinja wrote:Kilkrazy, are we looking at the same tables? Look at the rate per 100,000 in the population. Through the 70's, 80's, and 90's, crime was far higher than it is today.
Low crime in the 60's probably had more to do with population density, culture, and the population makeup as a whole. There were half as many people living in the US at the time.
Interesting how, starting in the late 80's we started seeing proliferation throughout the States of Right to Carry laws. More guns in civilians' hands, coinciding nicely with that reduction in crime rate from the 90's into 00's.
Or maybe the crack epidemic of the 1980s had subsided slightly. But, y'know, whatever conclusion about causation you want to jump to.
I wasn't inferring causality or jumping to any conclusions. I was merely stating that the claim that crime is "well up since the 1960's, when [we had] a lot fewer guns" is incorrect. Crime is lower now than it was then, despite there being a greater number of firearms in civilian hands.
Oklahoma isn't helping this subject any. Just had a cop accidentally shoot another cop at the gun range. Second time this happened in my county this year I think...
d-usa wrote: Oklahoma isn't helping this subject any. Just had a cop accidentally shoot another cop at the gun range. Second time this happened in my county this year I think...
I'll see if I can find the article... but we had car accidents involving two police cars already in MO.
But, TBH... one of them was actually during a chase... so, mulligan?
NuggzTheNinja wrote:Kilkrazy, are we looking at the same tables? Look at the rate per 100,000 in the population. Through the 70's, 80's, and 90's, crime was far higher than it is today.
Low crime in the 60's probably had more to do with population density, culture, and the population makeup as a whole. There were half as many people living in the US at the time.
Interesting how, starting in the late 80's we started seeing proliferation throughout the States of Right to Carry laws. More guns in civilians' hands, coinciding nicely with that reduction in crime rate from the 90's into 00's.
Or maybe the crack epidemic of the 1980s had subsided slightly. But, y'know, whatever conclusion about causation you want to jump to.
I wasn't inferring causality or jumping to any conclusions. I was merely stating that the claim that crime is "well up since the 1960's, when [we had] a lot fewer guns" is incorrect. Crime is lower now than it was then, despite there being a greater number of firearms in civilian hands.
Yes, you were inferring causality. Here is your quote:
More guns in civilians' hands, coinciding nicely with that reduction in crime rate from the 90's into 00's.
What else could you have possible been inferring?
"Crime is down --> less likely to have wallet stolen --> more money in pocket --> time to buy a gun"?
NuggzTheNinja wrote:Kilkrazy, are we looking at the same tables? Look at the rate per 100,000 in the population. Through the 70's, 80's, and 90's, crime was far higher than it is today.
Low crime in the 60's probably had more to do with population density, culture, and the population makeup as a whole. There were half as many people living in the US at the time.
Interesting how, starting in the late 80's we started seeing proliferation throughout the States of Right to Carry laws. More guns in civilians' hands, coinciding nicely with that reduction in crime rate from the 90's into 00's.
Or maybe the crack epidemic of the 1980s had subsided slightly. But, y'know, whatever conclusion about causation you want to jump to.
I wasn't inferring causality or jumping to any conclusions. I was merely stating that the claim that crime is "well up since the 1960's, when [we had] a lot fewer guns" is incorrect. Crime is lower now than it was then, despite there being a greater number of firearms in civilian hands.
Yes, you were inferring causality. Here is your quote:
More guns in civilians' hands, coinciding nicely with that reduction in crime rate from the 90's into 00's.
What else could you have possible been inferring?
"Crime is down --> less likely to have wallet stolen --> more money in pocket --> time to buy a gun"?
That's cute, you can read minds better than you can read English.
Dictionary.com wrote:co·in·cide [koh-in-sahyd] Show IPA
verb (used without object), co·in·cid·ed, co·in·cid·ing.
1.
to occupy the same place in space, the same point or period in time, or the same relative position: The centers of concentric circles coincide. Our vacations coincided this year.
NuggzTheNinja wrote:Interesting how, starting in the late 80's we started seeing proliferation throughout the States of Right to Carry laws. More guns in civilians' hands, coinciding nicely with that reduction in crime rate from the 90's into 00's.
Or maybe the crack epidemic of the 1980s had subsided slightly. But, y'know, whatever conclusion about causation you want to jump to.
I wasn't inferring causality or jumping to any conclusions. I was merely stating that the claim that crime is "well up since the 1960's, when [we had] a lot fewer guns" is incorrect. Crime is lower now than it was then, despite there being a greater number of firearms in civilian hands.
Yes, you were inferring causality. Here is your quote:
More guns in civilians' hands, coinciding nicely with that reduction in crime rate from the 90's into 00's.
What else could you have possible been inferring?
"Crime is down --> less likely to have wallet stolen --> more money in pocket --> time to buy a gun"?
That's cute, you can read minds better than you can read English.
Dictionary.com wrote:co·in·cide [koh-in-sahyd] Show IPA
verb (used without object), co·in·cid·ed, co·in·cid·ing.
1.
to occupy the same place in space, the same point or period in time, or the same relative position: The centers of concentric circles coincide. Our vacations coincided this year.
Nothing in my post stated causality.
Stated? No. Inferred? Absolutely.
in·fer (n-fûr)
v. in·ferred, in·fer·ring, in·fers
v.tr.
1. To conclude from evidence or premises.
2. To reason from circumstance; surmise: We can infer that his motive in publishing the diary was less than honorable.
3. To lead to as a consequence or conclusion: "Socrates argued that a statue inferred the existence of a sculptor" (Academy).
4. To hint; imply.
I dare say you just got schooled. Literally.
schooled, school·ing, schools
1. To educate in or as if in a school.
ing idiot points a revolver at his crotch????
