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.

Herzlos wrote:

jouso wrote:

 redleger wrote:


Yes, I think that is one of the main feelings is that even if the second amendment were repealed today, all the law abiding citizens(ok maybe most) would surrender their arms, apply for whatever licenses if any, or just go without. The problem is then that you have a large predatory populace left with fire arms, that it would be hard to argue would not take full advantage of this situation. Once you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

Initially, but since it'd become illegal to possess or trade guns without a license, and you visit the registered-but-unlicensed gun owners, then the number of guns in circulation will drop fairly quickly, as any unregistered or stolen guns are taken out of the system and not replaced. Give it maybe 5-10 years after repealing the 2nd ammendment with an amnesty, and you'd find that gun possession is in a vast minority.

I think 5-10 years is not worth allowing certain organizations to take a larger foot hold, branch out to communities thta would not have been cost effective, and have them terrorize local populaces. Sure, the police might get a handle on it eventually, but do you seriously think that anything would get better, is the increase in loss of life worth the long term goals?

 redleger wrote:
I have read this whole thread. Up front I believe that the former cop is whole heartedly in the wrong, however he does have a lame defense from SYG.

SYG is important and necessary and is in no way a license to do whatever you want. So is castle law. No one enters my home illegally and takes advantage of my years of hard work. Wrong house dude.

SYG really doesn't have an impact on this incident. Stand Your Ground removes a legal obligation to retreat from an aggressor, that's it. The defender isn't responsible for avoiding the aggressor, the obligation is on the aggressor to not be unlawfully aggressive in the first place. It doesn't mean that you can't walk away from a confrontation or that you shouldn't walk away from a confrontation only that you don't incur any legal liabilities for choosing not to walk away.

Whether or not there is justification to use lethal force in self defense is a completely separate calculation and legal matter. You can choose not to flee from an aggressor and never face a reasonable imminent threat of bodily harm or death as a result. Simply choosing to stand your ground doesn't create any justification to use lethal force.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 redleger wrote:
I have read this whole thread. Up front I believe that the former cop is whole heartedly in the wrong, however he does have a lame defense from SYG.

SYG is important and necessary and is in no way a license to do whatever you want. So is castle law. No one enters my home illegally and takes advantage of my years of hard work. Wrong house dude.

SYG really doesn't have an impact on this incident. Stand Your Ground removes a legal obligation to retreat from an aggressor, that's it. The defender isn't responsible for avoiding the aggressor, the obligation is on the aggressor to not be unlawfully aggressive in the first place. It doesn't mean that you can't walk away from a confrontation or that you shouldn't walk away from a confrontation only that you don't incur any legal liabilities for choosing not to walk away.

Whether or not there is justification to use lethal force in self defense is a completely separate calculation and legal matter. You can choose not to flee from an aggressor and never face a reasonable imminent threat of bodily harm or death as a result. Simply choosing to stand your ground doesn't create any justification to use lethal force.

I concur, and as I stated in this case the shooter was in the wrong, no matter how you look at it. I was simply making a blanket statement. I do not believe lethal force should always be the immediate to go, however I know when I'm 79, a fist fight might just be skipped in favor of some dirty tactics then possibly shooting an aggressor, but I don't start fights, so it would never be an issue.

Very true in general. This may impact specifically as Florida has an interesting SYG with a prehearing etc. that is different.

But in general you are correct. Its only designed to stop NYC caselaw that had gone to ridiculous lengths in the victim's duty to somehow escape an attacker before defending herself.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 redleger wrote:

jouso wrote:

 redleger wrote:


to all the non firearm countries out there.

Just a quick reminder. There are really very few "non firearm" countries out there. I'm from one of those countries yet I have 4 of them. Two handguns, one shotgun and a rifle, all legally owned and paid for (one of them made in America by the way).

It's true that it's harder for us to get hold of one, that you're required to act in a much more responsible manner with them but ask most gun owners and they'll agree it's for the best.

Different countries, different situations though. There so many legal and illegal weapons in the US it would take massively intrusive measures to make a dent.

Yes, I think that is one of the main feelings is that even if the second amendment were repealed today, all the law abiding citizens(ok maybe most) would surrender their arms, apply for whatever licenses if any, or just go without. The problem is then that you have a large predatory populace left with fire arms, that it would be hard to argue would not take full advantage of this situation. Once you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Its not often talked about, its always "this is my right", and while that is %100 true, there is another over arching concern which makes the idea very problematic.

Economic- hutning business is big in rural areas of America. Hunting it self is how many families save money on feeding the family. Hell I don't think I ate store bought meat till later on in life, and then it was rare.


I was about to begin naming all the issues, then i realized thats OT.

Connecticut has an "assault rifle" registry and a large majority of owners of "assault rifles" have ignored the law requiring them to register the rifles and the Connecticut authorities aren't trying to enforce compliance.

I would be interested as to why the ATF is not involved with this? This is part of a larger problem where we have laws in place that are not enforced, We definitely need this fixed before making an new ones.

Because the ATF doesn't want half their force exterminated WACO style (another time they tried that) when they try to illegally go house to house Gestapo style and run into the 1 in 20 gunowners who take the 2nd Amendment as it was first intended?

Of course before that, they all would have had accidents where their firearms fell into the lake or were robbed of only their firearms...

well Ruby Ridge and Waco were cluster feths but that doesn't negate the responsibility of the ATF to to their job in a lawful manner. Part of having a FFL is the understanding that at any time your right to not be searched is waived, so you can be inspected by surprise to ensure compliance. Why then in this stated scenario are our tax dollars not being use to ENFORCE the law?

 redleger wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 redleger wrote:

jouso wrote:

 redleger wrote:


to all the non firearm countries out there.

Just a quick reminder. There are really very few "non firearm" countries out there. I'm from one of those countries yet I have 4 of them. Two handguns, one shotgun and a rifle, all legally owned and paid for (one of them made in America by the way).

It's true that it's harder for us to get hold of one, that you're required to act in a much more responsible manner with them but ask most gun owners and they'll agree it's for the best.

Different countries, different situations though. There so many legal and illegal weapons in the US it would take massively intrusive measures to make a dent.

Yes, I think that is one of the main feelings is that even if the second amendment were repealed today, all the law abiding citizens(ok maybe most) would surrender their arms, apply for whatever licenses if any, or just go without. The problem is then that you have a large predatory populace left with fire arms, that it would be hard to argue would not take full advantage of this situation. Once you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Its not often talked about, its always "this is my right", and while that is %100 true, there is another over arching concern which makes the idea very problematic.

Economic- hutning business is big in rural areas of America. Hunting it self is how many families save money on feeding the family. Hell I don't think I ate store bought meat till later on in life, and then it was rare.


I was about to begin naming all the issues, then i realized thats OT.

Connecticut has an "assault rifle" registry and a large majority of owners of "assault rifles" have ignored the law requiring them to register the rifles and the Connecticut authorities aren't trying to enforce compliance.

I would be interested as to why the ATF is not involved with this? This is part of a larger problem where we have laws in place that are not enforced, We definitely need this fixed before making an new ones.

The ATF has zero involvement in this because it's a state law not a federal one so the ATF has no jurisdiction. A state report from 2011 used NICS information to estimate that there were 1.2 million rifles privately owned in Connecticut. To date there's been about 50k "assault rifles" registered which is nowhere near the actual number of "assault rifles" in Connecticut. Citizens don't want to register them and the govt and LEOs don't want to go looking for them but the law is still on the books.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17491-connecticut-gun-owners-fail-to-register-officials-push-amnesty
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0158.htm
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150626/ny-data-reveals-futility-of-gun-registration-laws
http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/More-than-51-000-assault-rifles-registered-in-6487021.php

Prestor Jon wrote:

 redleger wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 redleger wrote:

jouso wrote:

 redleger wrote:


to all the non firearm countries out there.

Just a quick reminder. There are really very few "non firearm" countries out there. I'm from one of those countries yet I have 4 of them. Two handguns, one shotgun and a rifle, all legally owned and paid for (one of them made in America by the way).

It's true that it's harder for us to get hold of one, that you're required to act in a much more responsible manner with them but ask most gun owners and they'll agree it's for the best.

Different countries, different situations though. There so many legal and illegal weapons in the US it would take massively intrusive measures to make a dent.

Yes, I think that is one of the main feelings is that even if the second amendment were repealed today, all the law abiding citizens(ok maybe most) would surrender their arms, apply for whatever licenses if any, or just go without. The problem is then that you have a large predatory populace left with fire arms, that it would be hard to argue would not take full advantage of this situation. Once you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Its not often talked about, its always "this is my right", and while that is %100 true, there is another over arching concern which makes the idea very problematic.

Economic- hutning business is big in rural areas of America. Hunting it self is how many families save money on feeding the family. Hell I don't think I ate store bought meat till later on in life, and then it was rare.


I was about to begin naming all the issues, then i realized thats OT.

Connecticut has an "assault rifle" registry and a large majority of owners of "assault rifles" have ignored the law requiring them to register the rifles and the Connecticut authorities aren't trying to enforce compliance.

I would be interested as to why the ATF is not involved with this? This is part of a larger problem where we have laws in place that are not enforced, We definitely need this fixed before making an new ones.

The ATF has zero involvement in this because it's a state law not a federal one so the ATF has no jurisdiction. A state report from 2011 used NICS information to estimate that there were 1.2 million rifles privately owned in Connecticut. To date there's been about 50k "assault rifles" registered which is nowhere near the actual number of "assault rifles" in Connecticut. Citizens don't want to register them and the govt and LEOs don't want to go looking for them but the law is still on the books.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17491-connecticut-gun-owners-fail-to-register-officials-push-amnesty
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0158.htm
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150626/ny-data-reveals-futility-of-gun-registration-laws
http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/More-than-51-000-assault-rifles-registered-in-6487021.php

Oh, you are talking about semi-automatic magazine fed rifles? Ok, now that makes senses.

 redleger wrote:
well Ruby Ridge and Waco were cluster feths but that doesn't negate the responsibility of the ATF to to their job in a lawful manner. Part of having a FFL is the understanding that at any time your right to not be searched is waived, so you can be inspected by surprise to ensure compliance. Why then in this stated scenario are our tax dollars not being use to ENFORCE the law?

Because Mattel gun owners don't have FFL's.

As for why the ATF doesn't do more, well my view of the ATF is less positive then other people...

EDIT: Ninja'd again!

There has been some discussion over how "crazy" the US is for its gun culture. I'll admit, guns can kill people, but I still love them. Why? because I can live with the risk, which is actually pretty low.

Guns are statistically less likely to kill you than the average swimming pool, pogo stick, trampoline, skateboard, bicycle, or ladder.

 cuda1179 wrote:
There has been some discussion over how "crazy" the US is for its gun culture. I'll admit, guns can kill people, but I still love them. Why? because I can live with the risk, which is actually pretty low.

Guns are statistically less likely to kill you than the average swimming pool, pogo stick, trampoline, skateboard, bicycle, or ladder.

Pogo sticks, the only toy designed specifically to cause accidents...

 Frazzled wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
There has been some discussion over how "crazy" the US is for its gun culture. I'll admit, guns can kill people, but I still love them. Why? because I can live with the risk, which is actually pretty low.

Guns are statistically less likely to kill you than the average swimming pool, pogo stick, trampoline, skateboard, bicycle, or ladder.

Pogo sticks, the only toy designed specifically to cause accidents...

Lawn darts. Because who doesn't want seven year olds flinging actual missiles all willy nilly.

 cuda1179 wrote:
There has been some discussion over how "crazy" the US is for its gun culture. I'll admit, guns can kill people, but I still love them. Why? because I can live with the risk, which is actually pretty low.

Guns are statistically less likely to kill you than the average swimming pool, pogo stick, trampoline, skateboard, bicycle, or ladder.

Do you have a citation to that?

Is that per-capita or per use?

 Frazzled wrote:
Americans-selfish and callow? Excellent, maybe the rest of the world will quit asking us for our help.

I can name a few countries that never called for US aid and would be all the better if the US hasn't sent said “help”.
“Let me help you by overthrowing your elected government to replace it with a violent dictatorship where the dictator serves our interest to the detriment of your people. I'm such a benevolent benefactor, why don't others thank me more for all I do for them!”
Is the US the official “Nice Guy™” country yet ?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In many respects, I think it's too late for the USA when it comes to gun control, even if everybody agreed to it. Your population is what? 300 million people or something, and I think there's 400 million guns in the country.

More guns than citizen according to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
But that hardly matters. Just put a lot of limitations on ammunition too.
Also once guns are banned and not used by law-abiding citizens it makes carrying a gun, as a criminal, much more dangerous because it directly identify you as a criminal. You can't blend in with law-abiding citizens anymore. The police can therefore arrest you even before you commit the crimes you planned to do.

Prestor Jon wrote:
You country decided that it was a logical to confiscate your shotgun as part of a response to a school shooting that you played no role in at all. How is that logical?

Seems pretty logical to me. Because people can't know in advance who is going to be the next would-be school shooter, they agree to remove guns from everyone, and therefore they do remove the gun from the next would-be school shooter. Every one of them pays a small price (losing their guns) for a high reward (taking the gun of the would-be school shooter away). Now the thing is that for you personally the price of taking your guns away is huge, even too big to make the reward of taking the gun away from the would-be school shooter away.
That's your choice, and the choice of many Americans. For the huge majority of people in the rest of the world, the reward outweigh the price by a huge margin. Different values, I guess.
Seriously, that reward is HUGE! How could it not be logical to pay this small price for this high reward?

Herzlos wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
There has been some discussion over how "crazy" the US is for its gun culture. I'll admit, guns can kill people, but I still love them. Why? because I can live with the risk, which is actually pretty low.

Guns are statistically less likely to kill you than the average swimming pool, pogo stick, trampoline, skateboard, bicycle, or ladder.

Do you have a citation to that?

Is that per-capita or per use?

Per the CDC report there were 586 accidental deaths by firearm in 2014. In comparison, the same year saw, 3,406 accidental drowning deaths, 31,959 deaths from accidental falls, 623 pedal cyclists were killed in motor vehicle accidents and 279 pedal cyclists were killed by other means and 1,342 people were unintentionally killed using other land transport means.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr65/nvsr65_04.pdf


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
You country decided that it was a logical to confiscate your shotgun as part of a response to a school shooting that you played no role in at all. How is that logical?

Seems pretty logical to me. Because people can't know in advance who is going to be the next would-be school shooter, they agree to remove guns from everyone, and therefore they do remove the gun from the next would-be school shooter. Every one of them pays a small price (losing their guns) for a high reward (taking the gun of the would-be school shooter away). Now the thing is that for you personally the price of taking your guns away is huge, even too big to make the reward of taking the gun away from the would-be school shooter away.
That's your choice, and the choice of many Americans. For the huge majority of people in the rest of the world, the reward outweigh the price by a huge margin. Different values, I guess.
Seriously, that reward is HUGE! How could it not be logical to pay this small price for this high reward?

I can't think of any benefit that would make me believe that punishing people for crimes they haven't committed yet and may never commit is worthwhile.

Guns deaths in the US are approx 33,000 per year.
Swimming pool deaths are approx 3500 per year.
One of those numbers is bigger than the other.
However, there are approx 310,000,000 guns in the US.
There are approx 13,520,000 pools in the US.
One of those numbers is smaller than the other.

This means there is 0.0001 deaths per gun, while there is 0.0002 deaths per pool, making guns statistically safer than pools!

Cuda,


Sauce:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
https://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html
http://blog.poolcenter.com/article.aspx?articleid=6053

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Americans-selfish and callow? Excellent, maybe the rest of the world will quit asking us for our help.

I can name a few countries that never called for US aid and would be all the better if the US hasn't sent said “help”.
“Let me help you by overthrowing your elected government to replace it with a violent dictatorship where the dictator serves our interest to the detriment of your people. I'm such a benevolent benefactor, why don't others thank me more for all I do for them!”
Is the US the official “Nice Guy™” country yet ?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In many respects, I think it's too late for the USA when it comes to gun control, even if everybody agreed to it. Your population is what? 300 million people or something, and I think there's 400 million guns in the country.

More guns than citizen according to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
But that hardly matters. Just put a lot of limitations on ammunition too.
Also once guns are banned and not used by law-abiding citizens it makes carrying a gun, as a criminal, much more dangerous because it directly identify you as a criminal. You can't blend in with law-abiding citizens anymore. The police can therefore arrest you even before you commit the crimes you planned to do.

yes, because hundreds of millions of firearms and tens of billions of rounds of ammunition, with no registration or way to track them, are going to be easy to get rid of, and we're assuming all police agencies will comply, which many will not. All you end up doing is turning untold millions of people who never did anything into criminals overnight. Thats the exact same silly logic that led to the insane drug war too.

Prestor Jon wrote:
You country decided that it was a logical to confiscate your shotgun as part of a response to a school shooting that you played no role in at all. How is that logical?

Seems pretty logical to me. Because people can't know in advance who is going to be the next would-be school shooter, they agree to remove guns from everyone, and therefore they do remove the gun from the next would-be school shooter.

better remove all cars too then, never know who th next drunk driver might be. All alcohol too for that matter.

Every one of them pays a small price (losing their guns) for a high reward (taking the gun of the would-be school shooter away).

taking away property rights and the means to self defense from millions of people to prevent *hypothetical* crimes that constitute a statistically irrelevant number of deaths.

Now the thing is that for you personally the price of taking your guns away is huge, even too big to make the reward of taking the gun away from the would-be school shooter away.
That's your choice, and the choice of many Americans. For the huge majority of people in the rest of the world, the reward outweigh the price by a huge margin. Different values, I guess.
Seriously, that reward is HUGE! How could it not be logical to pay this small price for this high reward?

Mass shootings and other such events have happened in places with much stricter gun laws, and when people cant get guns they use explosives or trucks or other such things. The types of events you are referencing kill almost nobody, they make great big headlines, but can and are done with different tools in different places.

It's the more common crimes around gangs and handguns that account for the overwhelming amount of gun violence, people who often already obtain guns illegally, which wouldnt be solved by any of this.

 feeder wrote:
Guns deaths in the US are approx 33,000 per year.
Swimming pool deaths are approx 3500 per year.
One of those numbers is bigger than the other.
However, there are approx 310,000,000 guns in the US.
There are approx 13,520,000 pools in the US.
One of those numbers is smaller than the other.

This means there is 0.0001 deaths per gun, while there is 0.0002 deaths per pool, making guns statistically safer than pools!

Cuda,


Sauce:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
https://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html
http://blog.poolcenter.com/article.aspx?articleid=6053

That 33,000 gun deaths also includes suicides, which is almost half that number.

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Guns deaths in the US are approx 33,000 per year.
Swimming pool deaths are approx 3500 per year.
One of those numbers is bigger than the other.
However, there are approx 310,000,000 guns in the US.
There are approx 13,520,000 pools in the US.
One of those numbers is smaller than the other.

This means there is 0.0001 deaths per gun, while there is 0.0002 deaths per pool, making guns statistically safer than pools!

Cuda,


Sauce:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
https://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html
http://blog.poolcenter.com/article.aspx?articleid=6053

That 33,000 gun deaths also includes suicides, which is almost half that number.

Two thirds according to the CDC.

33,599 total firearm deaths, 586 accidental, 21,334 suicides, 10,945 homicides, 270 undetermined and 464 legal intervention/war.

 whembly wrote:

That 33,000 gun deaths also includes suicides, which is almost half that number.

So?

Unless you are going to argue that more people are murdered with swimming pools than guns?

yes, because hundreds of millions of firearms and tens of billions of rounds of ammunition, with no registration or way to track them, are going to be easy to get rid of, and we're assuming all police agencies will comply, which many will not. All you end up doing is turning untold millions of people who never did anything into criminals overnight. Thats the exact same silly logic that led to the insane drug war too.

And Prohibition.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Spoiler:

 feeder wrote:
Guns deaths in the US are approx 33,000 per year.
Swimming pool deaths are approx 3500 per year.
One of those numbers is bigger than the other.
However, there are approx 310,000,000 guns in the US.
There are approx 13,520,000 pools in the US.
One of those numbers is smaller than the other.

This means there is 0.0001 deaths per gun, while there is 0.0002 deaths per pool, making guns statistically safer than pools!

Cuda,


Sauce:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
https://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html
http://blog.poolcenter.com/article.aspx?articleid=6053

That 33,000 gun deaths also includes suicides, which is almost half that number.

Two thirds according to the CDC.

33,599 total firearm deaths, 586 accidental, 21,334 suicides, 10,945 homicides, 270 undetermined and 464 legal intervention/war.

Oops... read that backwards. Thanks for the correction.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

That 33,000 gun deaths also includes suicides, which is almost half that number.

So?

Prestor corrected me... 2/3rd of that number is suicide.

...and it's relevant since much of the gun control agenda is to reduce violent crimes.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

That 33,000 gun deaths also includes suicides, which is almost half that number.

So?

Unless you are going to argue that more people are murdered with swimming pools than guns?

Most drownings are accidental and there are many times more accidental drownings deaths than accidental shooting deaths.

The fact a large number of gun deaths in the US probably shouldn't be handwaved away as saying well, a lot are suicide. Yes, that is true, but I think most reasonable people can probably agree that suicide is very much an impulsive act, and access to a firearm gives a much higher chance of successfully executing it. Yes, if you really want to, there is nothing stopping you from running in front of a bus or jumping off a bridge, but by and large, the amount of successful suicides in this country are at least in part because of easy access to firearms.

This isn't an argument that we need to ban firearms, just one of those things we have to accept that we're OK with as the cost for our way of life.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Most drownings are accidental and there are many times more accidental drownings deaths than accidental shooting deaths.

And tell me, do most localities not have requirements to try and mitigate this? i.e. require a fence around a pool?`

We don't really do this with firearms. States that attempt to require firearms be secured in a safe are decried as both unconstitutional and unworkable, and those arguments aren't without a grain of merit - but it's an attempt to mitigate, just like with pools. When a kid finds a gun and blows away a sibling or themselves, we often describe it as "an accident" and barring some modifier like the owner was a felon, the firearm owner isn't charged with a crime because it "was a tragedy, and they've suffered enough". Again, not making an argument for banning anything but they're both good examples of the weird blinders we wear as Americans.

 Ouze wrote:
The fact a large number of gun deaths in the US probably shouldn't be handwaved away as saying well, a lot are suicide. Yes, that is true, but I think most reasonable people can probably agree that suicide is very much an impulsive act, and access to a firearm gives a much higher chance of successfully executing it. Yes, if you really want to, there is nothing stopping you from running in front of a bus or jumping off a bridge, but by and large, the amount of successful suicides in this country are at least in part because of easy access to firearms.

This isn't an argument that we need to ban firearms, just one of those things we have to accept that we're OK with as the cost for our way of life.

I'm not advocating that we should handwave the suicide number.

In fact, I'm advocating that we should separate suicide by guns from the other gun death statistics. Why?

Suicide is cause by one person using an easy means to carry out the deed. This number should be pointed out so that we can properly assess the seriousness of mental health needs. Simply banning guns will do nothing to help someone planning their suicide mission.

So, adding in the suicide numbers with other violent gun deaths simply inflates that number and gives a flawed result.

Prestor Jon wrote:
I can't think of any benefit that would make me believe that punishing people for crimes they haven't committed yet and may never commit is worthwhile.

Keep going with that “punishment” narrative, it won't make it any truer. Someone deciding to give up on something is completely different from being punished. Now you personally you may not want to make that decision and you may be angry that other people's choice is forced upon you. But first, Herzlos did agree with this decision voluntarily and support it, so of course he doesn't feel punished and he is right not to, and second, that's how democracy work, sometime others people decisions are forced upon you. Coincidentally, it's also how fascism work and how communism work and how constitutional monarchy work, and basically how every political system work.
You ain't any more punished because gun control than you are punished because drug laws, or taxes, or traffic rules, or parking rules, or…

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
I can't think of any benefit that would make me believe that punishing people for crimes they haven't committed yet and may never commit is worthwhile.

Keep going with that “punishment” narrative, it won't make it any truer. Someone deciding to give up on something is completely different from being punished.

The person giving up something isnt the one making the decision in this case, the decision is forced upon them. Thats where the "punishment" aspect comes in.

Now you personally you may not want to make that decision and you may be angry that other people's choice is forced upon you. But first, Herzlos did agree with this decision voluntarily and support it, so of course he doesn't feel punished and he is right not to, and second, that's how democracy work, sometime others people decisions are forced upon you.

This almost never includes forfeiture of property however, especially without significant compensation.

Coincidentally, it's also how fascism work and how communism work and how constitutional monarchy work, and basically how every political system work.
You ain't any more punished because gun control than you are punished because drug laws, or taxes, or traffic rules, or parking rules, or…

hrm, no these things absolutely can be punishing and be intended as punishments, and are reacted to as such, like drug laws and taxes in many instances.

There are also very different categories here. You're mixing criminal law and civil law. Traffic laws are an entirely different area of law from drug law.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
I can't think of any benefit that would make me believe that punishing people for crimes they haven't committed yet and may never commit is worthwhile.

Keep going with that “punishment” narrative, it won't make it any truer. Someone deciding to give up on something is completely different from being punished. Now you personally you may not want to make that decision and you may be angry that other people's choice is forced upon you. But first, Herzlos did agree with this decision voluntarily and support it, so of course he doesn't feel punished and he is right not to, and second, that's how democracy work, sometime others people decisions are forced upon you. Coincidentally, it's also how fascism work and how communism work and how constitutional monarchy work, and basically how every political system work.
You ain't any more punished because gun control than you are punished because drug laws, or taxes, or traffic rules, or parking rules, or…

Removing rights and liberties is punishment. We deprive people of liberty when we put them in prison and that's forced upon them by society and that is most certainly punishment. If you take something away from somebody and leave them lesser than they were before they have been punished.
Why do you assume that I don't view drug laws, taxes the same way I view gun control laws?
The likelihood of the laws changing in my state and country to the extent that I am forced to give up my right to keep and bear arms is so infinitesimal it can be easily dismissed so I don't worry about it. What does concern me are intrusive oppressive laws that are unnecessary and are enacted on faulty reasoning, be it in the name of safety and gun control or any other false pretext.

Is it punishment that I'm not allowed to own my own nuclear reactor? Is it punishment that I'm not allowed to punch people in the face? You're bending the word to absurdity and beyond.