What Are People's Motivation To Outlaw Guns In The US?

keeponrockin

fear4freedom wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

ONLY 9000?

That's three 9/11s. Does that mean we should have 'focused our energies elseware to help save lives' because less than 3000 died that day?

Yes but it took 365 days to have that many, whereas 9/11 happened in about 3 hours or so! Big difference if you want to use that analogy!

The other way is, 9/11 only happened once, 9000 happens yearly.

DS1119

vant0037 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Only because I can only find 2009 stats right now.


Death by guns in the US for 2009. 9146 (exact number)

Population in 2009 of the US. Roughly 310 million. (314 million as of 2011 but I can't find the exact number so we will go with an estimate as of 2009)

Now take out of those death by guns in 2009 the people that were lawfully killed by a citizen, police officer, and of course this number includes people who have illegally obtained a firearm . For argument sake lets call it zero. 9146 deaths by gun out of 310 million....sounds like a huge problem to me. :?

You're not using the numbers correctly here. Guns in and of themselves aren't the problem; its guns used to commit violence that are the problem. So saying "well only 9000+ people were killed with guns out of 310,000,000 living in the US" doesn't make sense.

For instance, there were 2,437,163 total deaths in the U.S. in 2009. Now, if we assume your number for gun "deaths" is right (which I don't believe it is - even the homicide numbers with guns are higher), you need to compare that number to the total number of deaths, or homicides, NOT the total number of people living.

So if we look closer and do a bit of fact-checking (FBI, CDC for instance), you can find that the 2009 numbers for firearm homicides (not deaths) are actually 11,493. That's just homicides, not accidents etc. The total number of homicides for 2009 are 16,799 (including gun related). Some 68% of homicides in the US are "firearm" homicides? Wow.

Now add in non-fatal gun violence (i.e. robberies, assaults, non-fatal shootings etc). For instance, robberies are far more likely to be committed with a gun than any other type of weapon (according FBI's UCR, 42% of robberies are committed with a gun). Seeing a pattern? A majority of murders are committed with guns. Violent crime is committed with a gun more often than "strong-arm" violence or other weapons. The numbers are showing that guns make crime easier to accomplish (hence the high proportion of crimes committed with guns).

68% of homicides in 2009 were firearm homicides. I don't understand why people are trying to rationalize this away. No one's saying take all guns. But when crime is bloodier, deadlier and more frequent because of widespread access to guns, something has to be done. Arm everyone? Arm no one? Slingshots for all? Only single-shot pistols? I have no clue, but the numbers speak for themselves.

Note: all my data came from either the FBI's Uniform Crime Report (UCR) or the Centers for Disease Control Mortality Tables.

My numbers are correct just google it. Plenty of sites confirm them. Also, you're assuming crime is done with LEGALLY obtained weapons.

People woill read the paper (especially foreigners) and are lead to believe this is some huge problem in the US. That everyone should be walking around with bullet proff vests on or something. It really is time for the bleeding hearts in this country and concentrate their efforts on something that is actually a problem.

JonnyPistachio

Vant and keeponrockin make excellent points.
I sometimes wonder why I keep having this conversatoin, but then I realize because I'm just adamant about it. I also speak out vociferously against drunk driving. But we're allowed take on more than one cause at a time.

I just think if we dont identify this as a problem, to some degree (any degree!) we're getting too lazy.

If its 9,000 or 11,000 I dont care...its too many. And even if a few of these deaths could be avoided through some simple compromise, its worth it. I guess I just have more of an appreciation for all life than some. I've also seen first hand on several occasions the dangers of guns, and how quickly things can go wrong.

Another reason I speak out against guns so much is because I see several kids a month getting shot and killed in the news here...I understand that might just be Florida (I know, :crazy: ) but it saddens me every time I see it. Bu t Ialso fear at this point it is unreversible...our culture and the availability of guns has simply gone too far. But at the same time, it cant hurt to see if some different restrictions could work to save even ONE life.

JonnyPistachio

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a non-profit organization, points out that Americans still kill each other with guns at a level that is staggering compared to the rest of humanity.

A study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery found that the gun murder rate in the U.S. is almost 20 times higher than the next 22 richest and most populous nations combined.

Among the world’s 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids.

Nah, not a problem to the slightest... :wtf:

Jason P

DS1119 wrote:

Only because I can only find 2009 stats right now.


Death by guns in the US for 2009. 9146 (exact number)

Population in 2009 of the US. Roughly 310 million. (314 million as of 2011 but I can't find the exact number so we will go with an estimate as of 2009)

Now take out of those death by guns in 2009 the people that were lawfully killed by a citizen, police officer, and of course this number includes people who have illegally obtained a firearm . For argument sake lets call it zero. 9146 deaths by gun out of 310 million....sounds like a huge problem to me. :?

In 2009, 60% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm. (per United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime).

Statistics are funny on how they can be manipulated to make a problem look big or small. :geek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Office_on_Drugs_and_Crime

Please cite your sources in the future.

DS1119

Jason P wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Only because I can only find 2009 stats right now.


Death by guns in the US for 2009. 9146 (exact number)

Population in 2009 of the US. Roughly 310 million. (314 million as of 2011 but I can't find the exact number so we will go with an estimate as of 2009)

Now take out of those death by guns in 2009 the people that were lawfully killed by a citizen, police officer, and of course this number includes people who have illegally obtained a firearm . For argument sake lets call it zero. 9146 deaths by gun out of 310 million....sounds like a huge problem to me. :?

In 2009, 60% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm. (per United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime).

Statistics are funny on how they can be manipulated to make a problem look big or small. :geek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Office_on_Drugs_and_Crime

Please cite your sources in the future.

And how many of those homicides were committed by lawfully owned and purchased weapons? How many were police officers shooting a criminal? How many of those hmocides would have still happened even if there wasn't a gun involved?

Jason P

Another funny thing about stats, especially when trying to compare guns and cars ... how many people get in a car each day? How many people hold a gun each day?

Then, going back to 2009, you have these stats:

Car related deaths = 34,485

Firearm related deaths = 31,374

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Then consider that there are 254,212,610 registered cars in the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States

And roughly 80,000,000 people own a gun.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Then consider that gun and car related deaths are almost even-steven. I own five guns and haven't touched them in six months. I get in my truck every day for roughly 45 minutes of travel.

:think:

Then consider how ridiculous it is to bring up the car related death correlation when debating guns.

:fp:

Jason P

DS1119 wrote:

And how many of those homicides were committed by lawfully owned and purchased weapons? How many were police officers shooting a criminal? How many of those hmocides would have still happened even if there wasn't a gun involved?

A homicide is murder, so that rules police shootings out. How many are by lawfully owned? I don't know.

How many car deaths in 2009 were intentional or caused by impaired driving? How many could have been avoided if there was a designated driver?

MayDay10

i dont understand why people need this:


when the amendment was written with this in mind

JimmyV

MayDay10 wrote:

i dont understand why people need this:


when the amendment was written with this in mind

Exactly the point.

I have no problem with anyone who wants to keep a licensed handgun in their home or on their person. I have no problem if a hunter wants to keep a hunting rifle. But there is no reason why any citizen needs to have an arsenal of assault weapons in their home. This is not about outlawing guns.

DS1119

Jason P wrote:

Another funny thing about stats, especially when trying to compare guns and cars ... how many people get in a car each day? How many people hold a gun each day?

Then, going back to 2009, you have these stats:

Car related deaths = 34,485

Firearm related deaths = 31,374

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Then consider that there are 254,212,610 registered cars in the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States

And roughly 80,000,000 people own a gun.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Then consider that gun and car related deaths are almost even-steven. I own five guns and haven't touched them in six months. I get in my truck every day for roughly 45 minutes of travel.

:think:

Then consider how ridiculous it is to bring up the car related death correlation when debating guns.

:fp:

People who want to ban or over regulate guns are doing it for safety and to save lives correct? Why not concentrate on the biggest problems first? Why pigeon hole guns? You know why people do it? Because they make it their own personal agenda. It has nothing to do with caring about other people. It has everything to do with them trying to push their wills on others. That's the reason.

DS1119

Jason P wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

And how many of those homicides were committed by lawfully owned and purchased weapons? How many were police officers shooting a criminal? How many of those hmocides would have still happened even if there wasn't a gun involved?

A homicide is murder, so that rules police shootings out. How many are by lawfully owned? I don't know.

How many car deaths in 2009 were intentional or caused by impaired driving? How many could have been avoided if there was a designated driver?

It does not rule out police shootings but those are minimal anyhow. 9000 or so killed by a gun out of 310,000,000 plus people. It's a non issue. It's an agenda by people. Cut and dried. Spend your time worrying out the bigger issues people.

blackredyellow

MayDay10 wrote:

i dont understand why people need this:


when the amendment was written with this in mind

Even more humorous are the people who get assault rifles to arm themselves for a potential revolution against the government. Yes, that AR-15 you bought will do wonders against tanks and aircraft.

blackredyellow

DS1119 wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Another funny thing about stats, especially when trying to compare guns and cars ... how many people get in a car each day? How many people hold a gun each day?

Then, going back to 2009, you have these stats:

Car related deaths = 34,485

Firearm related deaths = 31,374

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Then consider that there are 254,212,610 registered cars in the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States

And roughly 80,000,000 people own a gun.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Then consider that gun and car related deaths are almost even-steven. I own five guns and haven't touched them in six months. I get in my truck every day for roughly 45 minutes of travel.

:think:

Then consider how ridiculous it is to bring up the car related death correlation when debating guns.

:fp:

People who want to ban or over regulate guns are doing it for safety and to save lives correct? Why not concentrate on the biggest problems first? Why pigeon hole guns? You know why people do it? Because they make it their own personal agenda. It has nothing to do with caring about other people. It has everything to do with them trying to push their wills on others. That's the reason.

I don't get your need to tell people what causes to believe in... A lot of anti-gun people are ones who have been affected by gun violence, just like a lot of anti drunk driving people are ones who have been affected by it.

Why do you feel the need to tell people what their priorities need to be or feel the need to dictate what anyone's personal agendas should be?

JonnyPistachio

DS1119 wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Another funny thing about stats, especially when trying to compare guns and cars ... how many people get in a car each day? How many people hold a gun each day?

Then, going back to 2009, you have these stats:

Car related deaths = 34,485

Firearm related deaths = 31,374

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Then consider that there are 254,212,610 registered cars in the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States

And roughly 80,000,000 people own a gun.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Then consider that gun and car related deaths are almost even-steven. I own five guns and haven't touched them in six months. I get in my truck every day for roughly 45 minutes of travel.

:think:

Then consider how ridiculous it is to bring up the car related death correlation when debating guns.

:fp:

People who want to ban or over regulate guns are doing it for safety and to save lives correct? Why not concentrate on the biggest problems first? Why pigeon hole guns? You know why people do it? Because they make it their own personal agenda. It has nothing to do with caring about other people. It has everything to do with them trying to push their wills on others. That's the reason.

You're completely wrong and so far off base.
Its pathetic you would equate pushing my will on someone... when from the bottom of my heart, I lose a breath every time I envision a kid with an accidental bullet hole in his head. That is some utter bullshit and I have no desire to converse with you if that's how low and stupid you think we are. Thats a shitty accusation and its obvious you've simply run out of anything semi-intelligent to say. Such bullshit.

Some of us simply see minor adjustments/compromises that might help society. Things that cant hurt to try. I also advocate for these things because I think they're an obvious small compromise that we could just test for a bit -- such as reduced magazine rounds, which is hardly an inconvenience. I dont know if it will work, but Im damned curious. We may also think mandatory breathalyzers in cars for people convicted of DUI are a good thing, but thats another thread. Also, we've pointed out how cigarette restrictions have escalated, helping people, but thats another thread. The USA killed too many innocents in Iraq for a terrible price, thats another thread. You see, you can have an agenda on a diversity of things all at the same time. Its called multitasking, you should try it one day. It makes ZERO sense to ignore a problem simply because you think cigarettes or DUI are more dangerous.

DS1119

JonnyPistachio wrote:

You're completely wrong and so far off base.
Its pathetic you would equate pushing my will on someone... when from the bottom of my heart, I lose a breath every time I envision a kid with an accidental bullet hole in his head. That is some utter bullshit and I have no desire to converse with you if that's how low and stupid you think we are. Thats a shitty accusation and its obvious you've simply run out of anything semi-intelligent to say. Such bullshit.

Some of us simply see minor adjustments/compromises that might help society. Things that cant hurt to try. I also advocate for these things because I think they're an obvious small compromise that we could just test for a bit -- such as reduced magazine rounds, which is hardly an inconvenience. I dont know if it will work, but Im damned curious. We may also think mandatory breathalyzers in cars for people convicted of DUI are a good thing, but thats another thread. Also, we've pointed out how cigarette restrictions have escalated, helping people, but thats another thread. The USA killed too many innocents in Iraq for a terrible price, thats another thread. You see, you can have an agenda on a diversity of things all at the same time. Its called multitasking, you should try it one day. It makes ZERO sense to ignore a problem simply because you think cigarettes or DUI are more dangerous.

I'm absolutely not off base. Anti-gun people are simply trying to push their feelings about guns onto others. Has nothing to do with safety or saving lives. If that were the case they should concentrate their time on the biggest issues first. How about increasing the size of the police force to worry about illegal weapons. Illegal weapons are the problem...not legal ones. Anyone who wants the banishment or over regulation of legal weapons in theis country are just chasing their own agenda. It has nothing to do with saving lives.

JonnyPistachio

DS1119 wrote:

It has nothing to do with saving lives.

:fp: :fp: :fp:

Did you read anything I just wrote, AT ALL? Do you have a reading disability? You're so far lost, I'm done here...see ya, good luck with your agenda of assuming NOBODY simply wants to save lives. What a fucking joke. Believe what you want, its obvious you dont believe anyone else when they tell you one thing, and you believe the opposite. Talk about an agenda, geesh. Now you're just being ignorant. I'm done.

DS1119

JonnyPistachio wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

It has nothing to do with saving lives.

:fp: :fp: :fp:

Did you read anything I just wrote, AT ALL? Do you have a reading disability? You're so far lost, I'm done here...see ya, good luck with your agenda of assuming NOBODY simply wants to save lives. What a fucking joke. Believe what you want, its obvious you dont believe anyone else when they tell you one thing, and you believe the opposite. Talk about an agenda, geesh. Now you're just being ignorant. I'm done.

I'm not ignorant. I'm a realist. Someone wants to tell someone they can't have a gun because they don't like them. Cut and dried. Has nothing to do with saving lives. How would smokers feel if the government said you can't have one because they kill. How about telling drinkers they can't have a drink because it kills. How would you feel if the government required you to install a breathalyzer in YOUR car because someone else drove drunk?

JimmyV

DS1119 wrote:

How about telling drinkers they can't have a drink because it kills. How would you feel if the government required you to install a breathalyzer in YOUR car because someone else drove drunk?

I've heard worse ideas, actually.

JonnyPistachio

DS1119 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

It has nothing to do with saving lives.

:fp: :fp: :fp:

Did you read anything I just wrote, AT ALL? Do you have a reading disability? You're so far lost, I'm done here...see ya, good luck with your agenda of assuming NOBODY simply wants to save lives. What a fucking joke. Believe what you want, its obvious you dont believe anyone else when they tell you one thing, and you believe the opposite. Talk about an agenda, geesh. Now you're just being ignorant. I'm done.

I'm not ignorant. I'm a realist. Someone wants to tell someone they can't have a gun because they don't like them. Cut and dried. Has nothing to do with saving lives. How would smokers feel if the government said you can't have one because they kill. How about telling drinkers they can't have a drink because it kills. How would you feel if the government required you to install a breathalyzer in YOUR car because someone else drove drunk?

You're not a realist when you tell me that Im not concerned with saving lives and that I simply have some stupid policing agenda (which makes no sense)...You're ignorant because I just told you my agenda and you spun it into something that its not. And you're telling me what I think? That's the dumbest and most ignorant thing I've ever had anyone say to me. Ever. And its obvious you cant conceive of anything outside of what you believe everyone else is thinking.

And to boot, you just spun it into saying we think people cant have gun again. You keep reverting to mysteriously thinking we want to ban guns. Even in your newest two analogies -- Telling everyone they cant smoke? That would be like me saying nobody can have guns. You're obviously being manipulative and cant see the point of an analogy. Again, its like reducing the speed limit from 65 to 50, not completely taking away cars, drinks, cigarettes, or guns. These things I've suggested (less magazine capacity, longer wait periods, better background checks) come at no cost to the gun owner.

Edit: I forgot to add a facepalm :fp: because I've hardly ever been told what I am thinking.