America's Gun Violence

I live in Colorado
Medical Marijuana has been legal for years
Recreational has been legal for 2+ years
Is the overall crime rate down? Yes
Is marijuana related crime rate down? Yes
Are people still being killed in marijuana related crimes? Yes
Would that family still be alive today if marijuana was legal? Maybe

PJ_Soul said:

Bentleyspop said:

PJ_Soul said:

Likely never would have happened if pot were legalized then.

Nope
Pot related crimes still happen in states with legal pot.

Some but not much. Massive reduction and generally closer to what you see with cigarettes. I think it's pretty safe to assume this mass murder likely wouldn't have happened if it were legal.

Agree.

Child Passenger Fatally Shoots Woman Driving Car in Milwaukee
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/child-passenger-fatally-shoots-woman-driving-car-milwaukee-n562951

dudeman said:

Pot growing operations were connected to the Ohio and Georgia shootings.

connected? not proven yet for ohio.

pureoc said:

Bentleyspop said:

Child Passenger Fatally Shoots Woman Driving Car in Milwaukee
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/child-passenger-fatally-shoots-woman-driving-car-milwaukee-n562951

2 children in the car and nether were in car seats. When you do stupid things like that don't be surprised by results like this.

boyfriend is or was a security guard. left it in the car

I've asked this question to friends in a friendly conversation about gun control and never get a serious answer. I'm not trying to persuade anyone with this, but want a real answer. Because in my mind I don't see how you can be for one but against another.
According to CDC there were 9,967 DUI deaths in 2014. According to the FBI website there was 8,775 gun homicides in 2010.

I know the years are different, those were just the first available results when I searched their websites. I also know most sources will quote gun deaths at much higher. Those include suicides and other forms, this number from the FBI is strictly homicides...Just don't want anyone thinking I am purposely misrepresenting data.

How can you be anti gun without wanting a ban on alcohol? More are killed from DUI accidents than are murdered with a gun. The only answer I've received was "alcohol isn't designed to kill people." True that alcohol is not designed to kill people-but in reality neither are most guns. More guns are designed with target practice, hunting or self defense in mind. And 99.9% of gun owners follow the law (completely made up that stat by the way). So if you want to ban guns to save lives, why not ban alcohol?

Look the stats up
http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

mace1229 said:

I've asked this question to friends in a friendly conversation about gun control and never get a serious answer. I'm not trying to persuade anyone with this, but want a real answer. Because in my mind I don't see how you can be for one but against another.
According to CDC there were 9,967 DUI deaths in 2014. According to the FBI website there was 8,775 gun homicides in 2010.

I know the years are different, those were just the first available results when I searched their websites. I also know most sources will quote gun deaths at much higher. Those include suicides and other forms, this number from the FBI is strictly homicides...Just don't want anyone thinking I am purposely misrepresenting data.

How can you be anti gun without wanting a ban on alcohol? More are killed from DUI accidents than are murdered with a gun. The only answer I've received was "alcohol isn't designed to kill people." True that alcohol is not designed to kill people-but in reality neither are most guns. More guns are designed with target practice, hunting or self defense in mind. And 99.9% of gun owners follow the law (completely made up that stat by the way). So if you want to ban guns to save lives, why not ban alcohol?

Look the stats up
http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

Really?

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mace1229 said:

I've asked this question to friends in a friendly conversation about gun control and never get a serious answer. I'm not trying to persuade anyone with this, but want a real answer. Because in my mind I don't see how you can be for one but against another.
According to CDC there were 9,967 DUI deaths in 2014. According to the FBI website there was 8,775 gun homicides in 2010.

I know the years are different, those were just the first available results when I searched their websites. I also know most sources will quote gun deaths at much higher. Those include suicides and other forms, this number from the FBI is strictly homicides...Just don't want anyone thinking I am purposely misrepresenting data.

How can you be anti gun without wanting a ban on alcohol? More are killed from DUI accidents than are murdered with a gun. The only answer I've received was "alcohol isn't designed to kill people." True that alcohol is not designed to kill people-but in reality neither are most guns. More guns are designed with target practice, hunting or self defense in mind. And 99.9% of gun owners follow the law (completely made up that stat by the way). So if you want to ban guns to save lives, why not ban alcohol?

Look the stats up
http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

As soon as you said guns are really designed for target practice... you lost your point (even though it was failing from the outset).

Guns are designed to kill. Period.

Hunting to kill animals? Yes. So... long rifles and shotguns... absolutely (to qualified owners). Self defence? Yes... so again... shotguns are great for self defence (exceptional stopping power and even a poor shot could use it for such a purpose).

Handguns? To someone demonstrating need? For sure. The suburbanite doesn't need one though even though they're pretty damn fancy.

Assault rifles? Urban assault rifles poorly designed for killing animals at typical distances found in the hunting setting and excellent for killing many things at short distances in rapid succession? Even they're really fancy too... No. Just no. Except for military and initial response teams in law enforcement.

I admit saying guns weren't designed to kill was a poor choice of words. I was thinking more something along the lines of the intended purpose when bought. Moving from a state (CA) where I was the only gun owner at my work in a building of about 40 people, to a state where about 90% of my coworkers own guns. (That had nothing to do with the reason for the move by the way, CA just got too expensive. My mortgage, tax and insurance on my 5 bedroom house on 1/3 acre is about $2 more than what I was paying for my half of the rent in a 2 bedroom apartment). Anyway, I know quite a few people with a wide range of firearms. A few were bought for self defense reasons, a few for hunting (killing yes, but not other people) but almost all were just for target shooting regardless of the type of firearm. All of the guns I own were purchased solely for target practice and are kept locked up with the ammo in a separate room. The last time I shot anything living was a bird in the 8th grade with a BB gun and my dad made me volunteer all summer at an animal rescue center for my punishment.
I am for gun laws, but just ones that makes sense. Some laws and restrictions are needed. Many guns in CA are banned simply because they "look mean" though and for no other reason.

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mace1229 said:

I've asked this question to friends in a friendly conversation about gun control and never get a serious answer. I'm not trying to persuade anyone with this, but want a real answer. Because in my mind I don't see how you can be for one but against another.
According to CDC there were 9,967 DUI deaths in 2014. According to the FBI website there was 8,775 gun homicides in 2010.

I know the years are different, those were just the first available results when I searched their websites. I also know most sources will quote gun deaths at much higher. Those include suicides and other forms, this number from the FBI is strictly homicides...Just don't want anyone thinking I am purposely misrepresenting data.

How can you be anti gun without wanting a ban on alcohol? More are killed from DUI accidents than are murdered with a gun. The only answer I've received was "alcohol isn't designed to kill people." True that alcohol is not designed to kill people-but in reality neither are most guns. More guns are designed with target practice, hunting or self defense in mind. And 99.9% of gun owners follow the law (completely made up that stat by the way). So if you want to ban guns to save lives, why not ban alcohol?

Look the stats up
http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

As soon as you said guns are really designed for target practice... you lost your point (even though it was failing from the outset).

Guns are designed to kill. Period.

Hunting to kill animals? Yes. So... long rifles and shotguns... absolutely (to qualified owners). Self defence? Yes... so again... shotguns are great for self defence (exceptional stopping power and even a poor shot could use it for such a purpose).

Handguns? To someone demonstrating need? For sure. The suburbanite doesn't need one though even though they're pretty damn fancy.

Assault rifles? Urban assault rifles poorly designed for killing animals at typical distances found in the hunting setting and excellent for killing many things at short distances in rapid succession? Even they're really fancy too... No. Just no. Except for military and initial response teams in law enforcement.

I admit saying guns weren't designed to kill was a poor choice of words. I was thinking more something along the lines of the intended purpose when bought. Moving from a state (CA) where I was the only gun owner at my work in a building of about 40 people, to a state where about 90% of my coworkers own guns. (That had nothing to do with the reason for the move by the way, CA just got too expensive. My mortgage, tax and insurance on my 5 bedroom house on 1/3 acre is about $2 more than what I was paying for my half of the rent in a 2 bedroom apartment). Anyway, I know quite a few people with a wide range of firearms. A few were bought for self defense reasons, a few for hunting (killing yes, but not other people) but almost all were just for target shooting regardless of the type of firearm. All of the guns I own were purchased solely for target practice and are kept locked up with the ammo in a separate room. The last time I shot anything living was a bird in the 8th grade with a BB gun and my dad made me volunteer all summer at an animal rescue center for my punishment.
I am for gun laws, but just ones that makes sense. Some laws and restrictions are needed. Many guns in CA are banned simply because they "look mean" though and for no other reason.

what is really the main point or goal of target shooting or practice?

The problem is that the proposed "common sense" gun control measures are not likely to reduce violence.

The argument will be made that the new laws don't go far enough and then there will be a push for confiscation. That's why the "gun nuts" oppose new legislation.

"Common Sense Gun Laws" will effect lawful gun owners, not criminals.

Something interesting about the words "common sense" is that those were the words used extensively by those who supported Eugenics. At the time, if you spoke up against Eugenics, you would be ridiculed by your peers for not possessing "common sense".

Just saying...