@cosmo, I know we've talked about this before but the cars point is one issue i completely disagree with you on. personally I don't see how you can't compare the two. I look at your last post and what comes to my mind first....is that cosmo is rationalizing the deaths of people killed by cars. I feel like (from your post) that a person killed in a car wreck doesn't start to become important to you until they meet a quota. I feel like you're taking a certain group of people(people killed by guns) and saying that they are more important than everyone else. for me, at the end of the day, cars are exactly like guns. they are inanimate objects used by people to kill other people. the fact that most are accidents and not by a machine "designed to kill" doesn't change the fact that they're dead. dead is dead yo. that being said when I hear people say we have to do "whatever it takes" if we "save one life it's worth it" for guns, if you don't have that same attitude for cars, then imo you're reason for being anti gun is because you don't like guns and not because you do like human life so much. i just don't understand how people who care about human life so much, scoff at the idea of doing whatever it takes to save lives even if it just saves one life, when it has to do with cars. just to put it in perspective to see how most of you come across to me.....if i came on here and said how i just bought a kickass assault rifle with these money high cap mags and then said oh by the way, tobacco kills, alcohol kills, steak knives kill and cars kill. you guys are callous heartless assholes for not doing whatever it takes to save those lives. anyone wanna go shoot? what would you think about that? would you think i was a hypocrite?
... Maybe I wasn't clear... I am not saying that a death by a gun holds more or less value than a death in an auto accident. I'm simply saying that the way the different statistical data is being portrayed is a false premise to begin with. Like, JM pointed out, it is not a valid comparison when you try to compare the statistics compiled by each seperate and different category. It would be like me trying to say that since there were far fewer people killed in the Space Shuttles than there were people slipping in their bathroom... and coming to the conclusion that travel by Space Shuttle is far safer than stepping into your bathroom. That's silly, right? I mean, who compares Space Shuttles to bathrooms? The basic flaw in the car/gun comparison is in the numbers. In order to make the equations comperable, you need to make each of the variables equal. Number of people who own and drive a car must equal the number of people who own and actively use guns. And, the number of hours spent using the those cars must equal the hours spent by those same people using their guns. You would be able to compare those two equations. My assupmtion is, if this were true, the data would change. ... Another problem with that the car/gun comparison is the basic method of usage of both. For example, We drive our cars on freeways and streets. Where do you fire your guns? Typically, on a firing range, right? On that range... everyone fires in the same direction, like on a freeway or a street, right? That sort of sounds like a common variable. Except, on the range, there isn't a range to your left, firing in your direction... seperated by either a fence or a painted line on the ground, is there? That would be dangerous. We would be able to make better statistical comparisons if the following existed: A. Freeway and streets were more like firing ranges so when you drove, there would only be a limited number of cars, driving along side of you at the same speed... no one in front of you... no one behind you. B. Firing ranges were more like freeways and streets with oncoming fire... shooters in front of you that you must avoid and shooters behind you that are supposed to avoid hitting you. Neither of those things will ever come to pass... so, there will never be a fair statistical comparison.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Also gun violence has gone down in the past 20 years according to a justice report done in 2013.
... Then... why do we need to arm ourselves? And i also agree with your other point... look inside the data, rather than just the sum. See how many people are murdered by home invasion, by a family member or a friend or acquaintance. Find out more about the victim and the shooter and the relationships between them. The data is all there. It al depends upon the way we use it. and we typically only use it to come to a conclustion that we want to see. That is why the saying, "There are lies, DAMN lies... and then there are...Statistics" exists.
Post edited by Cosmo on
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I guess this is just an irreconcilable difference in world view. I think if there is something that adds an element of risk to public health and safety, and it's legal and accessible, then it needs to be regulated. I know the last thing we need here is another analogy, but do you see how it's not that different than legalized marijuana? I may feel like I am the most experienced, careful, responsible and emotionally stable user on the planet, and I could easily take the position that I see no risk of me ever doing any harm to anyone with it, so why should the state government tax, regulate, and impose any limits on ME. But I'm human, anything can happen, my stability could change, and I live in a society. I recognize that easy access to something psychoactive adds some degree of risk to public health and safety. I'm thinking of society when I say I'm fine with paying those taxes to support regulation and DUI enforcement, education, substance abuse and mental health programs. It's not all about me.
Do I think I should be able to sell pot on Facebook? No. Organize meet ups with other enthusiasts at Starbucks where we bring our pot to flaunt in front of families with kids drinking cocoa? No. I think that for society's sake, some limits and regulation are needed when it comes to things with inherent risk to public health & safety - guns, pot, alcohol, cars. You can't just leave it up to individuals, it doesn't work.
From the data I was able to find (I'm at the airport so didn't really dig that deep) I could find that there are an estimated 45 million to 55 million gun owners in the US. According to the FBI there were 8,855 deaths due to fire arms in 2012 (most recent year I could find). I took the average (50 million) owners and rounded the FBI report up to 10,000 deaths for fire arms to make the math easier. That leaves %0.0002 of estimated gun owners that are responsible for the killing of someone else. I would have to say that the overwhelmingly majority of gun owners are indeed responsible. In my opinion, I do not see the 2nd amendment and guns as the issue. I would investigate the why's and break down the deaths to if it was self defense, drug related, mental illness, ect ect. Then I would start addressing those issues instead of just blaming guns as a whole.
Be careful, you are making way too much sense around these parts.
I just don't see the idea of how soon everyone will have a gun and there will be shootings on every block due to random arguments.
... You are correct, It's not the guns, themselves. Me, personally, i have never been in that camp. My beef is the abundant access to the guns. Like you said, look into the reasons why and how people are murdered by guns and address those issues... which includes limiting access to guns to some of our citizens. Maybe... and i admit, this is pure unsupported , wild speculation... maybe if Mrs. Landza had choosen to forfeit her love of sport shooting and sold off or stored her gun collection offsite until young Adam was out of her house.. maybe none of us would have ever heard of Newtown, CT. ... Also, try this observational experiment... Go to your local Wal-Mart this Saturday afternoon. Park your car... stroll across the parking lot... enter the building and walk the aisles for one hour. Look at every person you see there. Imagine them carrying a loaded weapon. Come back here and tell me if you would feel safer if every one of those people had a loaded gun on them.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
From the data I was able to find (I'm at the airport so didn't really dig that deep) I could find that there are an estimated 45 million to 55 million gun owners in the US. According to the FBI there were 8,855 deaths due to fire arms in 2012 (most recent year I could find). I took the average (50 million) owners and rounded the FBI report up to 10,000 deaths for fire arms to make the math easier. That leaves %0.0002 of estimated gun owners that are responsible for the killing of someone else. I would have to say that the overwhelmingly majority of gun owners are indeed responsible. In my opinion, I do not see the 2nd amendment and guns as the issue. I would investigate the why's and break down the deaths to if it was self defense, drug related, mental illness, ect ect. Then I would start addressing those issues instead of just blaming guns as a whole.
These numbers definitely make you think. But as I've said in these threads all along, there are small things that we could try (and I dont claim to know that they will work), such as smaller capacity magazines and better/longer background checks that might just weed out some of the dumber people who shouldnt have a gun -- such as the guy down the street from me whose 4 year daughter shot and killed herself a few weeks ago, the ex-cop in the movie theater who capped the other guy for texting and throwing popcorn, or the asshole who left his son's wedding and shot up a carload of kids listening to music too loud, killing one of them. Personally, I think some of these tiny changes might keep a few dingbats from getting weapons, or shooting off too many rounds when they do finally snap.
If these tiny changes save a few lives (even if it is only .0002%), then I think its worth it. I think some of us just want to modernize the way people obtain guns. I dont think that's too much to ask.
car gun comparison, tough to compare 2 things, BUT Drunk driving was a big problem, MADD raised awareness and over time drunk driving incidents lowered, I think the same could be done with guns in some sense, probably not in high school shooting class (maybe in health or something), but with better training before handing out guns to anyone.
Wouldn't it be funny if the world ended in 2010, with lots of fire?
I think there is a huge difference in the words need and deserve. That's me personally though I guess. I would say that the op's use of the word need just added some sensationalism to his point, which is what many anti gun groups do. I'm indifferent, it someone thinks they "need" a gun for protection, that's their prerogative. I'm okay with it. If someone feels they don't "need" a gun, I'm okay with that. I am against leaving it to the federal government to implement gun control changes. I think it should be left up to each state. Texas is completely different than Vermont, and so are the ways in which we grow up doing and are around. Yes I know that's a generalization, and some here will try and say I said everyone. But again, common sense. But I can say AR15's are really fun guns to shoot I must say though. But to each their own. There's a really interesting Vice episode where they sent one of their reporters out to a big gathering of gun supporters, and to the reporters surprise, he really enjoyed shooting many of the guns. I do think that any extremism on either side of the issue tends to cause problems and remove common sense. To many assume that if you have an ar15 you are a gun nut, and if you don't think someone should have one then you are completely against guns. But an interesting fact is that more people die in automobile accidents each year in the US than shooting.
We need transportation, cars. We don't need guns. Cars are getting safer and safer, guns are going in the opposite direction. The car comparison is a red herring. Humans can 't handle the responsibility of guns. More guns more senseless killing. My article above is classic example of human that couldn't handle a gun. Yesterday, close to my house, ex and current boyfriend of chick got into argument, loser went to his truck, came back and shot other dude. This will continue.
Callen,
The questions I about to ask are not to be an asshole. I am just looking for the other sides opinion. I myself am wondering what can be done to make the U.S. more safe while allowing people to still own guns.
Why do you think that the second amendment states that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Oysterjar:
Have read your posts and wouldn’t take offense, plus love Oysters on half shell.
Understand and empathize with framers for adding second amendment. I though don’t regard the constitution as an inflexible document that is infallible and can’t be changed. With that said, I still at this time, support an individual’s right to protect themselves. But see this gun culture of bigger and better firearms to protect themselves from the “Evildoers’” a vicious cycle that will just lead to more and more deaths.
How do we make it safer…don’t believe there is a way. Bad people will pass background checks and even “good” people have emotions that compromise being rational, as what happened to the lady that killed the drunk firefighter. This will happen more and more. Think we have lots of school shootings now…just wait. Home burglaries will continue along with F350 dually’s broken into and guns stolen. Likely the F350 will have a “Obama Suck” bumper sticker and the peace sign made out of a B1 Bomber.
Soon we’ll have open carry so don’t look at that guys girl wrong…or don’t be disrespecting…cause you may get shot.
My rights of being able to safely walk down the street is being infringed by others right to bear arms. Crazy.
Callen,
My perception, based on college study, is that the right to bear arms and have a well regulated militia are based on defense from both people and governments infringing upon our inherent rights. I think this point, defense from government, is all to overlooked when talking about the 2nd amendment.
Here is what a drum mag looks like (display model): ... Here is what the weapon configuration looks like: ... The only time i think I would need something like this would be if I wanted to hold off the Anaheim Police Department while barricaded in a brick elementary school... or if I wanted to go on a mass murdering spree so I could be famous. And you know what... if I was holding off the Anaheim Police Department while barricaded in a brick elementary school or on a mass murdering spree so I could be famous... I should NEVER have been able to get my emotionally unstable hands on them in the first place.
badass... i'd enjoy firing that sucker at a few rotten trees/logs, water jugs & lp grill canisters
I just don't see the idea of how soon everyone will have a gun and there will be shootings on every block due to random arguments. And also with the Ar15, the gun that anti gun groups seem should be illegal, is a riffle. And if you look at the link below (from the FBI website) you can see that there were more deaths from knives, or blunt objects, or personal weapons than riffles (including the ar15) in 2012. I was actually a bit surprised at that, and I wish the 2013 stats were up.
the 2013 & even the 2014 stats will be the same as they were in 2012... knives, blunt objects & personal weapons are used to kill more people than guns. it's been this way since forever, folks
No, I'm not paranoid. I just think its incredibly stupid. Freedom of expression, its cool.
NORRIDGEWOCK, Maine (AP) — Police armed with assault rifles descended on a Maine man's home after members of a tree removal crew he'd told to clear off his property reported that he had a gun.
Turns out the "gun" the tree crew had seen on Michael Smith of Norridgewock was just a life-sized tattoo of a handgun on his stomach.
Smith, who works nights, was asleep when the tree crew contracted by a utility to trim branches near power lines, woke him up at about 10 a.m. Tuesday.
He went outside shirtless and yelled at the workers to leave. When he's not wearing a shirt, the tattoo looks like a gun tucked into his waistband.
Smith tells the Morning Sentinel (http://bit.ly/1l37m2f) the tattoo has never been a problem before.
And look, they didn't shoot him or beat him to death. Its a miracle!
You also have to factor in the 80,000+ injuries from gun shootings every year and the huge cost to our medical and insurance systems. Cars didn't have seat belts. Now they do. They didn't have airbags. Now they do. And now they have side curtain airbags. And a whole host of other engineered safety features to mitigate the carnage on our highways. And while the more people killed in car crashes argument may have validity on its face, you have to look at it as a percentage of car ownership and total miles driven in a year. With guns, the number of gun owners has declined but the number of guns owned has gone up. And states with lax gun regulations and high gun ownership have higher rates of murder and shootings. There's a correlation. The difference is, with cars, "we" or the "public" or "government" or "manufacturers" recognized that the carnage was unsustainable and set about to change things to make driving cars safer. The gun lobby and some gun owners absolutely refuse to consider any type discussion, never mind legislation or regulation, to make gun ownership safer. See the opposition to Obama's nominee to be Surgeon General as proof of that.
@cosmo, I know we've talked about this before but the cars point is one issue i completely disagree with you on. personally I don't see how you can't compare the two. I look at your last post and what comes to my mind first....is that cosmo is rationalizing the deaths of people killed by cars. I feel like (from your post) that a person killed in a car wreck doesn't start to become important to you until they meet a quota. I feel like you're taking a certain group of people(people killed by guns) and saying that they are more important than everyone else. for me, at the end of the day, cars are exactly like guns. they are inanimate objects used by people to kill other people. the fact that most are accidents and not by a machine "designed to kill" doesn't change the fact that they're dead. dead is dead yo. that being said when I hear people say we have to do "whatever it takes" if we "save one life it's worth it" for guns, if you don't have that same attitude for cars, then imo you're reason for being anti gun is because you don't like guns and not because you do like human life so much. i just don't understand how people who care about human life so much, scoff at the idea of doing whatever it takes to save lives even if it just saves one life, when it has to do with cars. just to put it in perspective to see how most of you come across to me.....if i came on here and said how i just bought a kickass assault rifle with these money high cap mags and then said oh by the way, tobacco kills, alcohol kills, steak knives kill and cars kill. you guys are callous heartless assholes for not doing whatever it takes to save those lives. anyone wanna go shoot? what would you think about that? would you think i was a hypocrite?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I think there is a huge difference in the words need and deserve. That's me personally though I guess. I would say that the op's use of the word need just added some sensationalism to his point, which is what many anti gun groups do. I'm indifferent, it someone thinks they "need" a gun for protection, that's their prerogative. I'm okay with it. If someone feels they don't "need" a gun, I'm okay with that. I am against leaving it to the federal government to implement gun control changes. I think it should be left up to each state. Texas is completely different than Vermont, and so are the ways in which we grow up doing and are around. Yes I know that's a generalization, and some here will try and say I said everyone. But again, common sense. But I can say AR15's are really fun guns to shoot I must say though. But to each their own. There's a really interesting Vice episode where they sent one of their reporters out to a big gathering of gun supporters, and to the reporters surprise, he really enjoyed shooting many of the guns. I do think that any extremism on either side of the issue tends to cause problems and remove common sense. To many assume that if you have an ar15 you are a gun nut, and if you don't think someone should have one then you are completely against guns. But an interesting fact is that more people die in automobile accidents each year in the US than shooting.
We need transportation, cars. We don't need guns. Cars are getting safer and safer, guns are going in the opposite direction. The car comparison is a red herring. Humans can 't handle the responsibility of guns. More guns more senseless killing. My article above is classic example of human that couldn't handle a gun. Yesterday, close to my house, ex and current boyfriend of chick got into argument, loser went to his truck, came back and shot other dude. This will continue.
Callen,
The questions I about to ask are not to be an asshole. I am just looking for the other sides opinion. I myself am wondering what can be done to make the U.S. more safe while allowing people to still own guns.
Why do you think that the second amendment states that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Oysterjar:
Have read your posts and wouldn’t take offense, plus love Oysters on half shell.
Understand and empathize with framers for adding second amendment. I though don’t regard the constitution as an inflexible document that is infallible and can’t be changed. With that said, I still at this time, support an individual’s right to protect themselves. But see this gun culture of bigger and better firearms to protect themselves from the “Evildoers’” a vicious cycle that will just lead to more and more deaths.
How do we make it safer…don’t believe there is a way. Bad people will pass background checks and even “good” people have emotions that compromise being rational, as what happened to the lady that killed the drunk firefighter. This will happen more and more. Think we have lots of school shootings now…just wait. Home burglaries will continue along with F350 dually’s broken into and guns stolen. Likely the F350 will have a “Obama Suck” bumper sticker and the peace sign made out of a B1 Bomber.
Soon we’ll have open carry so don’t look at that guys girl wrong…or don’t be disrespecting…cause you may get shot.
My rights of being able to safely walk down the street is being infringed by others right to bear arms. Crazy.
Callen,
My perception, based on college study, is that the right to bear arms and have a well regulated militia are based on defense from both people and governments infringing upon our inherent rights. I think this point, defense from government, is all to overlooked when talking about the 2nd amendment.
Agree and I don't trust my government and or my fellow peeps and why I struggle with the gun issue. Was good to see murder stats( thanks Matt)and did put this in a bit of perspective for me but we're still arming ourselves to the hilt and the guns will get into the wrong hands.
Here is what a drum mag looks like (display model): ... Here is what the weapon configuration looks like: ... The only time i think I would need something like this would be if I wanted to hold off the Anaheim Police Department while barricaded in a brick elementary school... or if I wanted to go on a mass murdering spree so I could be famous. And you know what... if I was holding off the Anaheim Police Department while barricaded in a brick elementary school or on a mass murdering spree so I could be famous... I should NEVER have been able to get my emotionally unstable hands on them in the first place.
badass... i'd enjoy firing that sucker at a few rotten trees/logs, water jugs & lp grill canisters
... Oh, I agree. It is fun to go out shooting with a powerful and accurate rifle. The problem is... it was probably fun for James Holmes to cut down those screaming, fleeing, terrorized movie goers, too. If we can keep guys like that from having that kind of fun... we'd probably be better off.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
... I'm glad to here you do not dispute the call for tighter restrictions on who can legally obtain a fire arm, as well as restrictions on the types of weapons. i'm glad we have something we can agree on.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
No, I'm not paranoid. I just think its incredibly stupid. Freedom of expression, its cool.
NORRIDGEWOCK, Maine (AP) — Police armed with assault rifles descended on a Maine man's home after members of a tree removal crew he'd told to clear off his property reported that he had a gun.
Turns out the "gun" the tree crew had seen on Michael Smith of Norridgewock was just a life-sized tattoo of a handgun on his stomach.
Smith, who works nights, was asleep when the tree crew contracted by a utility to trim branches near power lines, woke him up at about 10 a.m. Tuesday.
He went outside shirtless and yelled at the workers to leave. When he's not wearing a shirt, the tattoo looks like a gun tucked into his waistband.
Smith tells the Morning Sentinel (http://bit.ly/1l37m2f) the tattoo has never been a problem before.
And look, they didn't shoot him or beat him to death. Its a miracle!
You also have to factor in the 80,000+ injuries from gun shootings every year and the huge cost to our medical and insurance systems. Cars didn't have seat belts. Now they do. They didn't have airbags. Now they do. And now they have side curtain airbags. And a whole host of other engineered safety features to mitigate the carnage on our highways. And while the more people killed in car crashes argument may have validity on its face, you have to look at it as a percentage of car ownership and total miles driven in a year. With guns, the number of gun owners has declined but the number of guns owned has gone up. And states with lax gun regulations and high gun ownership have higher rates of murder and shootings. There's a correlation. The difference is, with cars, "we" or the "public" or "government" or "manufacturers" recognized that the carnage was unsustainable and set about to change things to make driving cars safer. The gun lobby and some gun owners absolutely refuse to consider any type discussion, never mind legislation or regulation, to make gun ownership safer. See the opposition to Obama's nominee to be Surgeon General as proof of that.
Peace.
Norridgewock Maine! Thirty minutes from where I grew up! I am surprised Oosoola park didn't make it into the report!
For everyone else this is a small town in a state that borders more of Canada then the U.S. I call this area home.
As for the car comparison, let's break the death due to automobiles down to a percentage. Again this is dealing with estimates I was able to find. It's estimated that there are 230,000,000 registered cars and 40,000,000 unregistered cars. Added those then rounded up to give an even estimate of 300,000,000 automobiles in America. In 2012 there were 34,080 traffic fatalities. That comes to %0.00011 drivers are responsible for the death of another while operating a vehicle.
Guns 0.0002 Cars 0.00011
The percentages are not that far off, especially considering I rounded the estimated cars up by 30,000,000 vehicles.
I would have to say that it is pretty fair to compare car deaths and gun deaths.
Halifax, for your comment as to the states with the less strict gun laws have higher rates of gun murders, can I ask where you got this stat at? I looked up the 10 states with the strictest gun laws. These include; California, Pennsylvania, New York and Illinois. All of which rank in the top 10 states for gun deaths. California being number one on both lists.
Halifax, for your comment as to the states with the less strict gun laws have higher rates of gun murders, can I ask where you got this stat at? I looked up the 10 states with the strictest gun laws. These include; California, Pennsylvania, New York and Illinois. All of which rank in the top 10 states for gun deaths. California being number one on both lists.
I'll dig it up, probably tomorrow, but if my memory serves, it was an article by Ezra Klein?, who accurately predicted all 50 state presidential election outcomes. He had charts and a map illustrating the gun ownership rates along with gun deaths per 100,000 residents, along with other types of murder, etc. Southern states, with higher gun ownership also had higher death rates from guns. I'll dig it up tomorrow and post the link or links. I think it might have been titled, "7 myths or facts about guns" or something like that. I remember Maryland and Illinois were high in death rates probably because of Chicago and Baltimore but DC had the highest per 100,000 residents. Most were around 3 to 4 per 100k, the high were 6 or 7 per 100k and DC was like 12 or 13 per 100K. I'll post the link tomorrow.
gun violence in america is a GEOGRAPHIC problem. Strip away the gang-related shooting deaths that occur in a few dozen heavily impoverished neighborhoods and you are left with a fraction of an issue. The gun issue is just not that big of an issue. Take away assault rifles and large clips and you don't change gun murder rates noticeably. Take away handguns and you do. It's all or none folks. Life is either a peace agreement or an arms race and we live in the latter. If you want to live in fear, if guns are that much fun for you, whatever. Lame. If you hate guns because you hate death, you might start with poverty and war. If you just hate guns...Lame.. Small beans
Just have to ask, is it really Cosmo who has gone off the deep end? The OP started this thread claiming he NEEDS 30rd mags. When I brought up Holmes's 100rd mag found in the Aurora theatre, the OP stated there was zero evidence of a 100rd mag and that it was "a fact" that he only had 30rd mags. This "fact", he pulled out of his ass, as Cosmo posted all kinds of evidence of the 100rd mag, and made a well-thought argument for how those extra rounds Holmes was able to fire (until the double drum mag jammed) most likely ripped through a few extra movie-goers, at least. Then the OP went away mad. Now he's back on the attack, because Cosmo suggests that maybe the OP does agree that some restrictions on weaponry or expanded background checks might be in order. This is why the gun-rights advocates are losing credibility - they can't accept any limits whatsoever, even when the majority of Americans support some common-sense restrictions.
So okay, the stats. The stats Mattl1983 on more gun restrictions not helping bring down gun murders in those states - well, that's not a causal relationship by any means and you know stricter gun laws were passed in response to already high gun murder rates... also, those same stats can be used to argue for the need for more restrictions on a FEDERAL level. Both sides will find the stats to support their arguments, and I really NEED to get my March Madness picks done by noon EST. But just focusing on limits on high capacity mags for a minute, here are a couple facts from Sen. Blumenthal's call for a 10rd magazine limit: 1) since 1982, 31 of the 62 mass shootings have involved high-capacity mags. 2) fact that Jared Loughner's 13th bullet killed the 9 year old in AZ. Many of the crazy mass-shooters want notoriety - they want the biggest death toll they can get next to their name in the papers. And this: why do the super well-trained, responsible gun owners argue AGAINST magazine size limits, when they can change out a mag in a couple of seconds? Wouldn't slow them down much at all. But for a Holmes, a Loughner, a Lanza, having to stop and change mags could mean they are finally tackled (like Loughner was) or stopped or some potential victims have a few extra seconds to escape. You can't stop all of this obviously, but mag limits are a common sense start - in my mind. The response that "it wouldn't make any difference" .... it's gettin' old.
So really, I'm trying to understand the NEED for high-capacity mags. Is it that it's just way more fun to shoot at stuff without having to stop to change mags? Or is it about having enough ready firepower to fuel your anti-government fantasies? I don't see that the self-defense argument really holds up.
There's no point in even talking about this anyway... There are too many guns already and many citizens of America have an uncanny and overwhelming desire to stockpile them. There's no other country with a reputation for guns like the USA. There's no turning back.
I can agree with rgambs that it would seem to be geographic too. But after mentioning DC, Chicago, Maryland... Then I see the news in Florida, just in my area alone, where at least once or twice a month, a child is killed by accident with a gun. ahh, its only a few kids though...who cares right? It just cant be stopped. But here's where I find the car/gns analogy to be ridiculous: Of course kids are killed in car crashes. What's the answer? Homeschool them? Dont let them get in a car? Kids killed by guns? What's the answer? Dont be irresponsible with a gun? Dont have a stockpile of guns? Simply live without them because you dont NEED them?
Is it cause and effect? Or can you reasonably say that there is a correlation between higher gun ownership rates and lax gun laws and deaths caused by guns? And going back to the car comparison, I don't think you can compare the two but you can draw correlations. Kids dying in cars has fallen due to seat belts, car seats, passage of laws that penalize drivers for having unrestrained or un- car seated kids in the car and a massive PR campaign. Hell, I remember my mom flying over a hill and us unbuckled kids 4 or 5 of us, hitting our heads on the roof of the car before she went into dead man's curve at a high rate of speed and we all piled up against one side of the car. Poor man's roller coaster. Everything is much safer today than it was 50 years ago as it relates to cars and particularly with the total number of miles driven (and at higher speed limits I might add). Using registered cars only isn't fair as a registered car could sit in the driveway or garage all year. But with guns, ownership has gone down, the number of guns owned by a smaller percentage have gone up and the death rates are still, to me anyway in many places, unacceptable. Put a kid in a car unbelted or not in a car seat, get in an accident, said kid dies, you go to jail. Accidently allow a child to be "accidently" shot, its a tragic accident and the parents have suffered enough. Bullshit, go to jail and think about how much you love guns. And urban areas like Baltimore and Chicago and DC, with strict gun laws but high gun death rates? Thank the NRA and gun lobby for allowing straw purchases and no background checks for gun shows in the states within 300 miles of those cities, hence the need for federal legislation.
You really do have to do some digging as everyone uses different stats and the CDCs stats are much lower due to how they compile and where they draw from. The FBI's stats are higher. The Huffington Post article explains their methodology and sources and hey, it makes sense to me. And I'm glad I don't live in a state where my congressperson was shot in the head in a supermarket. Or any of those other gun nut Utopias.
Take your pick of those 10 or 20 states but to me, they're gun nut, delusion, paranoid, government is out to take my guns Utopias.
The links you posted seem to have conflicting information with rankings. Also one of the articles stated gun ownership is on the rise, another states it's on the decline. To my it's just journalism using multiple factors (one article said they used 10 different factors) to get the math correct in order to support the the authors thoughts. I'll stick with the basic breakdown of states with the strictest gun laws and states with the most gun deaths as my reasoning for your argument that the states with the most lax gun laws have the highest gun deaths.
And with actual gun violence being on the decline in the past 20 years, what is the issue? The movie shooting and Sandy Hook shootings are no doubt horrible events. But they do not actually reflect gun violence in our society. To me it's all media fueled, and politicians jump on it as a way to get votes.
Comments
Maybe I wasn't clear... I am not saying that a death by a gun holds more or less value than a death in an auto accident. I'm simply saying that the way the different statistical data is being portrayed is a false premise to begin with. Like, JM pointed out, it is not a valid comparison when you try to compare the statistics compiled by each seperate and different category. It would be like me trying to say that since there were far fewer people killed in the Space Shuttles than there were people slipping in their bathroom... and coming to the conclusion that travel by Space Shuttle is far safer than stepping into your bathroom.
That's silly, right? I mean, who compares Space Shuttles to bathrooms?
The basic flaw in the car/gun comparison is in the numbers. In order to make the equations comperable, you need to make each of the variables equal. Number of people who own and drive a car must equal the number of people who own and actively use guns. And, the number of hours spent using the those cars must equal the hours spent by those same people using their guns.
You would be able to compare those two equations. My assupmtion is, if this were true, the data would change.
...
Another problem with that the car/gun comparison is the basic method of usage of both. For example, We drive our cars on freeways and streets. Where do you fire your guns? Typically, on a firing range, right? On that range... everyone fires in the same direction, like on a freeway or a street, right? That sort of sounds like a common variable.
Except, on the range, there isn't a range to your left, firing in your direction... seperated by either a fence or a painted line on the ground, is there? That would be dangerous.
We would be able to make better statistical comparisons if the following existed:
A. Freeway and streets were more like firing ranges so when you drove, there would only be a limited number of cars, driving along side of you at the same speed... no one in front of you... no one behind you.
B. Firing ranges were more like freeways and streets with oncoming fire... shooters in front of you that you must avoid and shooters behind you that are supposed to avoid hitting you.
Neither of those things will ever come to pass... so, there will never be a fair statistical comparison.
Hail, Hail!!!
Then... why do we need to arm ourselves?
And i also agree with your other point... look inside the data, rather than just the sum. See how many people are murdered by home invasion, by a family member or a friend or acquaintance. Find out more about the victim and the shooter and the relationships between them. The data is all there. It al depends upon the way we use it. and we typically only use it to come to a conclustion that we want to see.
That is why the saying, "There are lies, DAMN lies... and then there are...Statistics" exists.
Hail, Hail!!!
Do I think I should be able to sell pot on Facebook? No. Organize meet ups with other enthusiasts at Starbucks where we bring our pot to flaunt in front of families with kids drinking cocoa? No. I think that for society's sake, some limits and regulation are needed when it comes to things with inherent risk to public health & safety - guns, pot, alcohol, cars. You can't just leave it up to individuals, it doesn't work.
You are correct, It's not the guns, themselves. Me, personally, i have never been in that camp. My beef is the abundant access to the guns.
Like you said, look into the reasons why and how people are murdered by guns and address those issues... which includes limiting access to guns to some of our citizens. Maybe... and i admit, this is pure unsupported , wild speculation... maybe if Mrs. Landza had choosen to forfeit her love of sport shooting and sold off or stored her gun collection offsite until young Adam was out of her house.. maybe none of us would have ever heard of Newtown, CT.
...
Also, try this observational experiment...
Go to your local Wal-Mart this Saturday afternoon. Park your car... stroll across the parking lot... enter the building and walk the aisles for one hour.
Look at every person you see there. Imagine them carrying a loaded weapon.
Come back here and tell me if you would feel safer if every one of those people had a loaded gun on them.
Hail, Hail!!!
If these tiny changes save a few lives (even if it is only .0002%), then I think its worth it. I think some of us just want to modernize the way people obtain guns. I dont think that's too much to ask.
Drunk driving was a big problem, MADD raised awareness and over time drunk driving incidents lowered, I think the same could be done with guns in some sense, probably not in high school shooting class (maybe in health or something), but with better training before handing out guns to anyone.
My perception, based on college study, is that the right to bear arms and have a well regulated militia are based on defense from both people and governments infringing upon our inherent rights. I think this point, defense from government, is all to overlooked when talking about the 2nd amendment.
Wind this thing up.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
NORRIDGEWOCK, Maine (AP) — Police armed with assault rifles descended on a Maine man's home after members of a tree removal crew he'd told to clear off his property reported that he had a gun.
Turns out the "gun" the tree crew had seen on Michael Smith of Norridgewock was just a life-sized tattoo of a handgun on his stomach.
Smith, who works nights, was asleep when the tree crew contracted by a utility to trim branches near power lines, woke him up at about 10 a.m. Tuesday.
He went outside shirtless and yelled at the workers to leave. When he's not wearing a shirt, the tattoo looks like a gun tucked into his waistband.
Smith tells the Morning Sentinel (http://bit.ly/1l37m2f) the tattoo has never been a problem before.
Police didn't charge him.
http://news.msn.com/offbeat/maine-mans-gun-turns-out-to-be-a-tattoo-1
And look, they didn't shoot him or beat him to death. Its a miracle!
You also have to factor in the 80,000+ injuries from gun shootings every year and the huge cost to our medical and insurance systems. Cars didn't have seat belts. Now they do. They didn't have airbags. Now they do. And now they have side curtain airbags. And a whole host of other engineered safety features to mitigate the carnage on our highways. And while the more people killed in car crashes argument may have validity on its face, you have to look at it as a percentage of car ownership and total miles driven in a year. With guns, the number of gun owners has declined but the number of guns owned has gone up. And states with lax gun regulations and high gun ownership have higher rates of murder and shootings. There's a correlation. The difference is, with cars, "we" or the "public" or "government" or "manufacturers" recognized that the carnage was unsustainable and set about to change things to make driving cars safer. The gun lobby and some gun owners absolutely refuse to consider any type discussion, never mind legislation or regulation, to make gun ownership safer. See the opposition to Obama's nominee to be Surgeon General as proof of that.
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Primary purpose of a weapon is what?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Oh, I agree. It is fun to go out shooting with a powerful and accurate rifle.
The problem is... it was probably fun for James Holmes to cut down those screaming, fleeing, terrorized movie goers, too. If we can keep guys like that from having that kind of fun... we'd probably be better off.
Hail, Hail!!!
I'm glad to here you do not dispute the call for tighter restrictions on who can legally obtain a fire arm, as well as restrictions on the types of weapons.
i'm glad we have something we can agree on.
Hail, Hail!!!
For everyone else this is a small town in a state that borders more of Canada then the U.S. I call this area home.
Wind this thing up.
Guns 0.0002
Cars 0.00011
The percentages are not that far off, especially considering I rounded the estimated cars up by 30,000,000 vehicles.
I would have to say that it is pretty fair to compare car deaths and gun deaths.
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Now he's back on the attack, because Cosmo suggests that maybe the OP does agree that some restrictions on weaponry or expanded background checks might be in order. This is why the gun-rights advocates are losing credibility - they can't accept any limits whatsoever, even when the majority of Americans support some common-sense restrictions.
So okay, the stats. The stats Mattl1983 on more gun restrictions not helping bring down gun murders in those states - well, that's not a causal relationship by any means and you know stricter gun laws were passed in response to already high gun murder rates... also, those same stats can be used to argue for the need for more restrictions on a FEDERAL level. Both sides will find the stats to support their arguments, and I really NEED to get my March Madness picks done by noon EST. But just focusing on limits on high capacity mags for a minute, here are a couple facts from Sen. Blumenthal's call for a 10rd magazine limit: 1) since 1982, 31 of the 62 mass shootings have involved high-capacity mags. 2) fact that Jared Loughner's 13th bullet killed the 9 year old in AZ. Many of the crazy mass-shooters want notoriety - they want the biggest death toll they can get next to their name in the papers. And this: why do the super well-trained, responsible gun owners argue AGAINST magazine size limits, when they can change out a mag in a couple of seconds? Wouldn't slow them down much at all. But for a Holmes, a Loughner, a Lanza, having to stop and change mags could mean they are finally tackled (like Loughner was) or stopped or some potential victims have a few extra seconds to escape. You can't stop all of this obviously, but mag limits are a common sense start - in my mind. The response that "it wouldn't make any difference" .... it's gettin' old.
So really, I'm trying to understand the NEED for high-capacity mags. Is it that it's just way more fun to shoot at stuff without having to stop to change mags? Or is it about having enough ready firepower to fuel your anti-government fantasies? I don't see that the self-defense argument really holds up.
I can agree with rgambs that it would seem to be geographic too. But after mentioning DC, Chicago, Maryland... Then I see the news in Florida, just in my area alone, where at least once or twice a month, a child is killed by accident with a gun. ahh, its only a few kids though...who cares right? It just cant be stopped. But here's where I find the car/gns analogy to be ridiculous: Of course kids are killed in car crashes. What's the answer? Homeschool them? Dont let them get in a car? Kids killed by guns? What's the answer? Dont be irresponsible with a gun? Dont have a stockpile of guns? Simply live without them because you dont NEED them?
You put me on your "List", didn't you?
Hail, Hail!!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/states-gun-violence_n_3091993.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death-by-gun-top-20-states-with-highest-rates/
The Ezra Klein article I alluded to below:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/23/six-facts-about-guns-violence-and-gun-control/
Is it cause and effect? Or can you reasonably say that there is a correlation between higher gun ownership rates and lax gun laws and deaths caused by guns? And going back to the car comparison, I don't think you can compare the two but you can draw correlations. Kids dying in cars has fallen due to seat belts, car seats, passage of laws that penalize drivers for having unrestrained or un- car seated kids in the car and a massive PR campaign. Hell, I remember my mom flying over a hill and us unbuckled kids 4 or 5 of us, hitting our heads on the roof of the car before she went into dead man's curve at a high rate of speed and we all piled up against one side of the car. Poor man's roller coaster. Everything is much safer today than it was 50 years ago as it relates to cars and particularly with the total number of miles driven (and at higher speed limits I might add). Using registered cars only isn't fair as a registered car could sit in the driveway or garage all year. But with guns, ownership has gone down, the number of guns owned by a smaller percentage have gone up and the death rates are still, to me anyway in many places, unacceptable. Put a kid in a car unbelted or not in a car seat, get in an accident, said kid dies, you go to jail. Accidently allow a child to be "accidently" shot, its a tragic accident and the parents have suffered enough. Bullshit, go to jail and think about how much you love guns. And urban areas like Baltimore and Chicago and DC, with strict gun laws but high gun death rates? Thank the NRA and gun lobby for allowing straw purchases and no background checks for gun shows in the states within 300 miles of those cities, hence the need for federal legislation.
You really do have to do some digging as everyone uses different stats and the CDCs stats are much lower due to how they compile and where they draw from. The FBI's stats are higher. The Huffington Post article explains their methodology and sources and hey, it makes sense to me. And I'm glad I don't live in a state where my congressperson was shot in the head in a supermarket. Or any of those other gun nut Utopias.
Take your pick of those 10 or 20 states but to me, they're gun nut, delusion, paranoid, government is out to take my guns Utopias.
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
And with actual gun violence being on the decline in the past 20 years, what is the issue? The movie shooting and Sandy Hook shootings are no doubt horrible events. But they do not actually reflect gun violence in our society. To me it's all media fueled, and politicians jump on it as a way to get votes.