Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

They pry these ice cold beers from my hand when I'm dead. They have to pick the day though when I elect not to take my meds just to enjoy a beer. Of course there's been time I've drunk a beer while on meds and felt....ggggoooooooodddddddd

 d-usa wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Captain Fantastic wrote:

Amaya wrote:
Exactly. What are you hunting that requires a bloody semiautomatic assault rifle?

In addition to that, it needs to be exceptionally more difficult to purchase firearms. I think having a government/military security clearance and/or having a clean record should be sufficient. Having a HS diploma should also be a requirement if it isn't already.

Why are you hung up on this hunting thing? Probably a decent share of gun owners have no intent to kill animals. I'm sure there's plenty of gun owners that also have no intention of protecting themselves with their firearms (myself included). You don't need a reason to own a firearm. The sheer fact that you want one is enough. It's your right.

But it's my RIGHT to have land mines buried in my garden! Who are you to take away my anti-tank missiles? I want a stash of mustard gas, but them evil dudes aren't letting me!

Are you even covered by the US constitution, or is this just bure baseless hyperbole?

Land mines are an armament. Bearing arms is pretty open ended and was written with field artillery in mind since it was written to provide for the right to form armed militias (and maintain their support and supply systems) capable of fighting state sponsored armed forces (or specifically insurrections). It wasn't written into the constitution so that you could have a fun day using your mac-10 or gun a robber down. The right to own a gun is a right with a purpose and was written during a time when the English had been attempting to disarm colonials. Narrowing the specificity of the second amendment to mean only the handguns that you want to own shows a disconnect between the actual second amendment and it's intentions and the modern American pro gun citizens belief that their right to own a gun is self evident by the guns "necessity".

The entire debate is pretty debased, the second amendment means almost nothing in modern times and the current world in no way reflects what the original authors had written the second amendment for.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Well, you could make drinking alcohol illegal, stopping drunk driving. America tried that once though and nobody liked that.

The Mob liked it.

 d-usa wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Captain Fantastic wrote:

Amaya wrote:
Exactly. What are you hunting that requires a bloody semiautomatic assault rifle?

In addition to that, it needs to be exceptionally more difficult to purchase firearms. I think having a government/military security clearance and/or having a clean record should be sufficient. Having a HS diploma should also be a requirement if it isn't already.

Why are you hung up on this hunting thing? Probably a decent share of gun owners have no intent to kill animals. I'm sure there's plenty of gun owners that also have no intention of protecting themselves with their firearms (myself included). You don't need a reason to own a firearm. The sheer fact that you want one is enough. It's your right.

But it's my RIGHT to have land mines buried in my garden! Who are you to take away my anti-tank missiles? I want a stash of mustard gas, but them evil dudes aren't letting me!

Are you even covered by the US constitution, or is this just bure baseless hyperbole?

How is it any different? If simply wanting a gun is enough to make it a right, why can't I have my own battleship?

http://www.scalehobbyist.com/catagories/Ship_Models/browse.php?s=0&t=1&era=0,7,8&u=13

Here you go. Your choice of battleships

If you are not covered by the 2nd, then no gun for you!

 Jihadin wrote:

I'll fight you with my car.

I've done that. Actually did it in a MATV. Drove right through the front door. My driver just grinned like a maniac when I told him to take out the front wall. Two captured insurgents.

That's awesome-sauce!

Ahem...

The amount of weapon cache that some folks are know are borderline... insane. Virtual bunkers of stuff.

I'm surprised that we don't see MORE gun related deaths with the sheer amount of weapons we have here.

Are there statistics that show accidental gun-related injuries/ deaths that differentiate between legally owned and illegally owned guns?

And if your shooting a gunman in self defense, you should never have to fire more than 2 shots, so only carrying 10 in a clip shouldn't matter.

A bit like saying "You shouldn't ever have to throw more than one punch in self defense, so throwing 3 is automatically assault." don't you think?

 d-usa wrote:
Are there statistics that show accidental gun-related injuries/ deaths that differentiate between legally owned and illegally owned guns?

None that I've seen though in theory it wouldn't be a difficult study to do if you had access to the relevant databases.

And if your shooting a gunman in self defense, you should never have to fire more than 2 shots, so only carrying 10 in a clip shouldn't matter.

Be aware how one is doing this. If there's a significant pause between shots where there is a perception of a "Double tap" you might have committed murder.

 Jihadin wrote:

And if your shooting a gunman in self defense, you should never have to fire more than 2 shots, so only carrying 10 in a clip shouldn't matter.

Be aware how one is doing this. If there's a significant pause between shots where there is a perception of a "Double tap" you might have committed murder.

And if you don't you hit 11 innocent people ala the recent new york shooting incident. Fire control is one of those weird things where you're damned if you do or don't.

It's pretty clear at this point in the thread that most posters are far more bothered by someone getting killed by a gun than someone dying from alcohol related causes even though alcohol kills more than twice as many people as guns.
Even if we were to take just the statistics of people killed by drunk drivers and compare them to someone who has been killed by someone intending to shoot them, alcohol related fatalities lead.

So now my question is why do people care more about gun related deaths?

Relapse wrote:
It's pretty clear at this point in the thread that most posters are far more bothered by someone getting killed by a gun than someone dying from alcohol related causes even though alcohol kills more than twice as many people as guns.
Even if we were to take just the statistics of people killed by drunk drivers and compare them to someone who has been killed by someone intending to shoot them, alcohol related fatalities lead.

So now my question is why do people care more about gun related deaths?

A man who can't see most of his detractors arguments (because he has them on ignore) is making blanket statements about what people in the thread have been saying (in a topic that probably should have been locked from the outset given the posters history). This is the point at which the ignore feature starts to fail conceptually.

 SOFDC wrote:

And if your shooting a gunman in self defense, you should never have to fire more than 2 shots, so only carrying 10 in a clip shouldn't matter.

A bit like saying "You shouldn't ever have to throw more than one punch in self defense, so throwing 3 is automatically assault." don't you think?

No, because if I fire two shots at you, you'd be dead, or wishing you were.
rule 2, double tap.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:

And if your shooting a gunman in self defense, you should never have to fire more than 2 shots, so only carrying 10 in a clip shouldn't matter.

Be aware how one is doing this. If there's a significant pause between shots where there is a perception of a "Double tap" you might have committed murder.

I was trained to double tap. I can do it quick enough out of reflex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
It's pretty clear at this point in the thread that most posters are far more bothered by someone getting killed by a gun than someone dying from alcohol related causes even though alcohol kills more than twice as many people as guns.
Even if we were to take just the statistics of people killed by drunk drivers and compare them to someone who has been killed by someone intending to shoot them, alcohol related fatalities lead.

So now my question is why do people care more about gun related deaths?

Its not that they care more, it's just that they care. We can address the issue and come up with sensible laws and solutions to avoid future mass shootings. We can address all the issues at the same time instead of focusing on one, and ignoring all the others.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are there statistics that show accidental gun-related injuries/ deaths that differentiate between legally owned and illegally owned guns?

None that I've seen though in theory it wouldn't be a difficult study to do if you had access to the relevant databases.

I would think that people that own guns illegally would be less careful with them, but I realize that this might be wishful thinking.

And if you don't you hit 11 innocent people ala the recent new york shooting incident. Fire control is one of those weird things where you're damned if you do or don't.

You have to be totaly aware of it. Its one of those "things" where in the military you can be charged for it and it will stick. They say how actually close the police officers were to the shooter?

 d-usa wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are there statistics that show accidental gun-related injuries/ deaths that differentiate between legally owned and illegally owned guns?

None that I've seen though in theory it wouldn't be a difficult study to do if you had access to the relevant databases.

I would think that people that own guns illegally would be less careful with them, but I realize that this might be wishful thinking.

I wonder if there's a course for illegal gun owners.

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are there statistics that show accidental gun-related injuries/ deaths that differentiate between legally owned and illegally owned guns?

None that I've seen though in theory it wouldn't be a difficult study to do if you had access to the relevant databases.

I would think that people that own guns illegally would be less careful with them, but I realize that this might be wishful thinking.

I wonder if there's a course for illegal gun owners.

Yes. They offer them at gunshows. You can also buy the gun at them.

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are there statistics that show accidental gun-related injuries/ deaths that differentiate between legally owned and illegally owned guns?

None that I've seen though in theory it wouldn't be a difficult study to do if you had access to the relevant databases.

I would think that people that own guns illegally would be less careful with them, but I realize that this might be wishful thinking.

I wonder if there's a course for illegal gun owners.

Well, I was just thinking that accidental gun injuries are one of the statictis used to push for more gun control laws. So it would be interesting to me to find out if there is a difference between injuries by legal owners vs. illegal gun owners. If the majority of gun injuries come from illegally owned guns then I wonder if making more laws are going to make any difference in stopping gun injuries caused by guns these people shouldn't have to begin with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are there statistics that show accidental gun-related injuries/ deaths that differentiate between legally owned and illegally owned guns?

None that I've seen though in theory it wouldn't be a difficult study to do if you had access to the relevant databases.

I would think that people that own guns illegally would be less careful with them, but I realize that this might be wishful thinking.

I wonder if there's a course for illegal gun owners.

Yes. They offer them at gunshows. You can also buy the gun at them.

Watching the poor trigger control and gun handling by gang-bangers, it might be useful. If they would know how to shoot it might stop all the bystanders getting hit during drive-by shootings [/sarcasm]

It would definitely be some interesting statistics, though, if a person found them as far as injuries for legal and illegal guns go.

Dusa.
I think if such a statistic existed you'd find legal firearms the majority culprit of accidents caused by firearms as a whole. Even if we enter the morass of what's legal where like the New York shooting with a "legal" gun that's illegal to posses in the city without a permit, would that be legal or illegal? In any even legal firearms outnumber illegal firearms no matter how you twist and turn to define which ones are illegal.

It would be more of a curiosity thing for me to see if an illegally owned gun is more likely to accidentally harm somebody than a legally owned gun. I wouldn't expect policy making to result from that.

First you have to define an illegal gun, because for the most part the gun is legal. It's the owner or the owners location that makes it illegal.

 AustonT wrote:
First you have to define an illegal gun, because for the most part the gun is legal. It's the owner or the owners location that makes it illegal.

I would probably just focus on "legally owned gun" vs. "illegally owned gun". I would avoid the whole "legally owned guns used in an illegal way" thing and focus the research on a question like this:

"Does a gun that was obtained illegally or owned by a person that is not legally allowed to own a gun inside a home result in more accidental injuries than a gun that was obtained legally."

So I wouldn't focus on guns or gun accidents that involve people carrying the guns outside the home.

 d-usa wrote:
It would be more of a curiosity thing for me to see if an illegally owned gun is more likely to accidentally harm somebody than a legally owned gun. I wouldn't expect policy making to result from that.

Logic would dictate that the majority of accidental injury is done via legally owned firearms since they hugely outnumber illegally owned firearms (mostly due to hunting weapons). Logic also dictates that due to a lessened focus on safety and training illegal firearm holders would be more prone to accidents. Illegal firearm owners probably don't report accidental injury or death as often as legal owners which would heavily skew any statistic sourced from accident reports and criminal records.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It would be more of a curiosity thing for me to see if an illegally owned gun is more likely to accidentally harm somebody than a legally owned gun. I wouldn't expect policy making to result from that.

Logic would dictate that the majority of accidental injury is done via legally owned firearms since they hugely outnumber illegally owned firearms. Logic also dictates that due to a lessened focus on safety and training illegal firearm holders would be more prone to accidents. Illegal firearm owners probably don't report accidental injury or death as often as legal owners which would heavily skew any statistic sourced from accident reports and criminal records.

If you focus on pure numbers, then yes. More injuries will probably be from legally owned firearms because there are more legally owned firearms. But I would be interested in the difference in risks. Does a legally owned firearm have a 0.05% chance to result in an accidental injury while a illegally owned firearm has a 0.5% chance in accidental injury? Stuff like that.

Relapse wrote:
It's pretty clear at this point in the thread that most posters are far more bothered by someone getting killed by a gun than someone dying from alcohol related causes even though alcohol kills more than twice as many people as guns.
Even if we were to take just the statistics of people killed by drunk drivers and compare them to someone who has been killed by someone intending to shoot them, alcohol related fatalities lead.

So now my question is why do people care more about gun related deaths?

People don't (usually) drink themselves to death or kill people by driving drunk. You shoot someone on purpouse. Thus, there's not just the death of the victim, but the breach of the social contract as well (you don't go around killing people at a whim). Alcohol wasn't invented or intended to kill people, guns are.

Wait...driving drunk isn't a breach of social contract?

Around here people want public executions for drunk drivers. Saying that gun deaths get people more fired up that drunk driving deaths would be extremely wrong in my neck of the woods.