The US Gun Debate - BUT from a different angle

[Overkill]

Quote
but much of what the Pro Gun people want is plan stupid and they twist reality

Good post ugly shoes.  I have no quarrel with shotguns for farmers who hunt, or kill vermin. No else needs guns apart from sport shooting at registered ranges where guns can be held under lock and key. Your point about the historical context of the constitution is also valid, and has been argued elsewhere. They needed guns in frontier America to defend against (naturally) hostile natives, and dangerous wild animals. Not too many of either around now..........  

[BallisticGelatin]

Quote
I don't belive people should have automatic guns or hand guns since they serve no purpose, you don't hunt with them.

The Second Amendment ain't about hunting.  Read up on what some of the Founding Fathers have to say about an armed populace being necessary to freedom.....

Quote
Again you show your lack of misunderstanding statistics

I think you are yet again trying to either be insulting here or at least condescending....But I am very glad that I have a 'lack of misunderstanding of statistics'....Because that means I understand statistics.  If you want to convince someone that your opinion is correct, try NOT insulting your opponents intelligence.  Smooches!

[Connor]

Quote
Originally posted by: BallisticGelatin


I think you are yet again trying to either be insulting here or at least condescending....But I am very glad that I have a 'lack of misunderstanding of statistics'....Because that means I understand statistics.  If you want to convince someone that your opinion is correct, try NOT insulting your opponents intelligence.  Smooches!

You know what I meant, even if I mistyped it,

You quote figures with no reference and expect them to prove something instead they end up meaningless, and I have never questioned your intellegence, merely your ability to show and interpret numbers in a practical and useable way. It doesnt make you less intelligent, it means you have little experience of that field. However your interpretation of figures is as loose as those that most Pro-Gunners usually provide. You ask for reference to the populations of the countries in question but don't state why you see the relevance, you quote a figure using generalisations and random estimates which fails to prove anything.

Show me you understand the figures you are posting here, and I'll give you some credit for the ability to prove something meaningful. But as yet you have failed to do that, saying the graphs look pretty but making no comment on them and quoting Jay aren't really going to convince me of your ability to do that.

[ScutMonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: Connor


and as I said about children being shot:

Firearms Deaths by Mode of Death for Children <15 Years of Age
per 100,000


that's 3 times the rate of any other country in the US.
and more than the total in any country are suicide or accident  or either.

as for the bathtub incident what I found really scary was this:



A child is only 20 times more likely to die from a motor accident than they are a gunshot wound.

Now given children run out in front of cars and are involved in car accidents all the time, to know that every for every 20 that happens to another one is shot.
To know that fo every 4th child who scalds/burns himself to death on a fire hot bath tub, pot in the kitchen one is shot.
to know that for every 5th child who falls in a garden pond or river or pases out in the bathtup one is shot.
to know that every second child who suffocates himself by accident one is shot.

that is a scary statistic, and I'm glad I can bring my children up in a country where at least I can minismise the risk of that happening to them.

The only thing that chart proves to me is that people care alot less about the most dangerous thing in their daily lives, which is the car.  We're screaming for all of this legislation on guns and here you have a chart that proves unequivocably that driving requirements should be much higher because they are a far larger danger to the general public than guns.  Your child is 20 times more likely to be killed by a car than a gun and you're worried about a gun?  IMO, that's misplaced concern.

Moreover, your stats site the very low incidences of gun deaths among Canadian children and they don't have any gun control either.  Seems the problem may not be the guns, but education about them or simply the types of people using them.  Even your first graph has bizarre results.  The lowest group of child deaths is Belguim and yet it has an extremely high gun homicide rate compared with ownership.  In fact, Italy and Belgium both have very high gun homicide rates compared to ownership which could indicate that gun homicide rates do not necessary corrolate with lawful gun ownership.  

But it's another example of two people seeing the same thing and having a different interpretation of it.

Your gun homicide charts also don't talk about the fact that 90% of gun homicides in the US are committed by people who know their victims.  Domestic violence.  Banning guns will not stop the violence that goes on in these situations and it certainly won't allow victims of this violence to defend themselves from it.    

[Tmagic650]

Well said Scut

[Connor]

Quote
Originally posted by: ScutMonkey

The only thing that chart proves to me is that people care alot less about the most dangerous thing in their daily lives, which is the car.  We're screaming for all of this legislation on guns and here you have a chart that proves unequivocably that driving requirements should be much higher because they are a far larger danger to the general public than guns.  Your child is 20 times more likely to be killed by a car than a gun and you're worried about a gun?  IMO, that's misplaced concern.

Many car fatalities involving children require education on the children's part, this is something that is continously improving and every year the figfures tend to drop some more as more legislation is brought in to deal with it. The gun front it is very rarely the childrens education that needs to be improved and more those of parents and

Quote

Moreover, your stats site the very low incidences of gun deaths among Canadian children and they don't have any gun control either.  Seems the problem may not be the guns, but education about them or simply the types of people using them.  Even your first graph has bizarre results.  The lowest group of child deaths is Belguim and yet it has an extremely high gun homicide rate compared with ownership.  In fact, Italy and Belgium both have very high gun homicide rates compared to ownership which could indicate that gun homicide rates do not necessary corrolate with lawful gun ownership.  

Belgium, Holland, and Italy all have high organised crime homicides. Hence the number of deaths related to organised crime is high but for those unconnected with that in the general populace it is low but still shows high on the graph. Cartel on Cartel killing has very little effect on the general populace homicide rate and many deaths can be perpetrated by the same lawfully owned gun and never properly investigated.

Since 1995 Canada does have gun control, with registration of all weapons and restrictions on Assault and full Auto weapons, Storage requirements are higher than the US (possibly cutting down on most infant deaths), there are also harsh penalties when guns are used in crimes keeping perpatrators off the streets.

Quote

But it's another example of two people seeing the same thing and having a different interpretation of it.

Your gun homicide charts also don't talk about the fact that 90% of gun homicides in the US are committed by people who know their victims.  Domestic violence.  Banning guns will not stop the violence that goes on in these situations and it certainly won't allow victims of this violence to defend themselves from it.

The Killas report shows otherwise, it suggests that being restricted in gun ownership, 60% of those homocides will not happen at all. That is people will not go look for an alternative means because it is too easy to act rashly with a gun but most other forms of homicide require forethought and most perpetrators think again during this period.

As I've said I'm not against banning guns entirely I just like the idea of it being harder for everyone to have them so that they can't get a chance to act rashly like this.

[Timster]

As Scut stated earlier, education in firearms safety and responsibility has seriously been neglected in the US.  I've been raised in a rural setting, and the use of firearms for hunting and casual sport shooting (plinking) was commonplace, but so was the teaching of safe and responsible handling of firearms.  When I was seven I was given a Daisy air rifle, and was taught to treat it as if it was any other rifle.  I was taught the basic rules of firearm handling (treat every weapon as if it were loaded, keep it pointed in a safe position, NEVER point it at anyone, regardless if it's unloaded, do not touch one if you don't know how to handle it, etc.)  Even before I was old enough for a pellet gun, my father never left a gun out where I or my sister could get hurt by it.  I knew kids that would have BB gun fights and shoot at each other, but I wouldn't get involved, knowing if my parents found out, I'd lose the trust of my parents and the priviledge of handling that air rifle, supervised or unsupervised.  It was because I was afraid, but more out of pride that my parents trusted me to know when something was not right.  That air rifle was handled like any other rifle and was put in the cabinet when not in use.  I never thought the treatment of firearms was out of the ordinary, because I the same applied to power tools, mechanical equipment, and pointed objects, like knives and saws.

They teach kids in school common sense things like the dangers of playing with matches, not to play around fallen power lines, or the dangers of playing around a hot stove, you'd think they could also be taught firearm safety without making them think all firearms are bad.  The NRA's Eddie the Eagle program is a great example of a firearms safety designed for kids, but it's not being implemented where it could do the most good.  What is wrong with telling a child if they find a firearm to stop, don't touch it, and tell a grown up about it?  I know this only works with children over a certain age, but that's why it's so important to keep guns out of reach of toddlers and those who don't know any better.

For those that say gun type "A" should not be owned, but type "B" is ok, it's not that plain cut and dried.  There are many civilian sporting and hunting weapons that have alot in common with their military cousins.  Some differences are only cosmetic, and have little to do with the lethality of the weapon.

[ScutMonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: Connor

Since 1995 Canada does have gun control, with registration of all weapons and restrictions on Assault and full Auto weapons, Storage requirements are higher than the US (possibly cutting down on most infant deaths), there are also harsh penalties when guns are used in crimes keeping perpatrators off the streets.

Whoa, whoa, whoa you're assuming there is no gun control in the US which simply isn't the case.  The Brady Bill (signed under Clinton), which requires a backround check and waiting period for gun ownership, and the assault rifle ban (signed under Bush Sr.) have both been in place for a number of years.  Neither of these has had any effect whatsoever on gun crime statistics.  The comparison with Canada is still valid in that respect.

Quote
The Killas report shows otherwise, it suggests that being restricted in gun ownership, 60% of those homocides will not happen at all. That is people will not go look for an alternative means because it is too easy to act rashly with a gun but most other forms of homicide require forethought and most perpetrators think again during this period.

As I've said I'm not against banning guns entirely I just like the idea of it being harder for everyone to have them so that they can't get a chance to act rashly like this.

I dont have a problem with the Brady Bill, although the assault rifle ban bothers me a tad (because they're so much fun to shoot).  I'd even be happy with mandatory safety classes for gun owners.  But that's a far, far different thing from Vorlon's "melt down all Civilian guns and make something worthwhile" rant.  

PS.  Did I get the quote right, Vorlon?  I did it from memory.

[Connor]

Quote
Originally posted by: ScutMonkey

Quote
Originally posted by: Connor

Since 1995 Canada does have gun control, with registration of all weapons and restrictions on Assault and full Auto weapons, Storage requirements are higher than the US (possibly cutting down on most infant deaths), there are also harsh penalties when guns are used in crimes keeping perpatrators off the streets.

Whoa, whoa, whoa you're assuming there is no gun control in the US which simply isn't the case.  The Brady Bill (signed under Clinton), which requires a backround check and waiting period for gun ownership, and the assault rifle ban (signed under Bush Sr.) have both been in place for a number of years.  Neither of these has had any effect whatsoever on gun crime statistics.  The comparison with Canada is still valid in that respect.

No I don't think that the US has no Gun Control whatsoever.

I just think that the Canadian requirements for weapons storage helps to keep the number of infant deaths down ( and remember we're only talking about 1 child per 100,00 difference)

That difference doesnt alter crime statistics (The graphs are still failry equal on the first chart) but it does alter infant mortality rates significantly (effectively halves them). Thats not to say that the plenty of US gun owners who properly store their weapons are at fault, just those minority that still keep it in a sock drawer or under a bed where children can find it.

Quote

Quote
The Killas report shows otherwise, it suggests that being restricted in gun ownership, 60% of those homocides will not happen at all. That is people will not go look for an alternative means because it is too easy to act rashly with a gun but most other forms of homicide require forethought and most perpetrators think again during this period.

As I've said I'm not against banning guns entirely I just like the idea of it being harder for everyone to have them so that they can't get a chance to act rashly like this.

I dont have a problem with the Brady Bill, although the assault rifle ban bothers me a tad (because they're so much fun to shoot).  I'd even be happy with mandatory safety classes for gun owners.

I'm not going to comment on what Vorlon said, but I agree with you.

I don't think Assault weapons should be banned, but they should be restricted and possibly have stricter storage requirements than single shot weapons. The same should also be true of higher power sniper rifles, not a blanket ban but requirements on the ownership of them.

I think there should be lessons for new gun owners, and probably for those switching class of gun also mandatory safety checks by the police or ATF, with no onus to arrest but just to check security and access to weapons and give Advice, Support, and Aid in securing them.

I think it might be an idea to have mandatory ballistic test tagged to the gun before sale. Serial- Owner-Photo of Rifle marks, so if a legally bought gun is used in a crime the police can check the owner immediately based on any spent rounds they find. It should help to cut into that 90% crime figure.




 

[BallisticGelatin]

Quote
That is people will not go look for an alternative means because it is too easy to act rashly with a gun but most other forms of homicide require forethought and most perpetrators think again during this period.

Uh huh.  Nobody is killed in this country with knives, baseball bats, bicycle chains, hands and feet and other common everyday items....

[ScutMonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: BallisticGelatin

Quote
That is people will not go look for an alternative means because it is too easy to act rashly with a gun but most other forms of homicide require forethought and most perpetrators think again during this period.

Uh huh.  Nobody is killed in this country with knives, baseball bats, bicycle chains, hands and feet and other common everyday items....

No, I understand his point and yes fewer people would probably die from gun violence, but I don't think there would be fewer violent acts.  People would be beaten, stabbed, and maimed instead of killed and in some cases it would happen continuously.  Violence is a problem in this country and I don't think gun bans are going to do much about that fact.  The thing is, fewer people would be victims of terrorism if we gave the government sweeping powers to invade/take away our personal liberties and we don't let them.  Why treat a gun ban any differently?  Because people that support it like talking nasty on the phone or through email and not having to worry about it, but they don't like guns because "they're scary and dangerous."  

"The pen is mightier than the sword" right?  Seems like there's a double standard there that alot of people don't want to acknowledge or just don't care about.  There's always a fight between personal freedoms and personal safety.  

[Connor]

Quote
Originally posted by: ScutMonkey

Quote
Originally posted by: BallisticGelatin

Quote
That is people will not go look for an alternative means because it is too easy to act rashly with a gun but most other forms of homicide require forethought and most perpetrators think again during this period.

Uh huh.  Nobody is killed in this country with knives, baseball bats, bicycle chains, hands and feet and other common everyday items....

No, I understand his point and yes fewer people would probably die from gun violence, but I don't think there would be fewer violent acts.  People would be beaten, stabbed, and maimed instead of killed and in some cases it would happen continuously.  Violence is a problem in this country and I don't think gun bans are going to do much about that fact.

The thing is that in other countries that is exactly what has happened when tough gun legislation has come into force, and is proven out by the figures. Yes there may be some increase in violent assaults but that risk of violence usually carries a higher survival rate and what it really eats into is the 90% of homocides where a family situation has gotten out of control - A jilted wife is unlikely to kill her husband with baseball bats, bicycle chains, hands and feet and it takes a lot to make her kill with a knife the same applies to those killing of rich relatives or acts of vengance. Homocide and Violence arent 100% related and that is part of the misnomer that leads people to purchase guns they don't really need and eventually misuse them or allow them to be misused.

[Timster]

Banning of higher power sniper rifles?  What is the criterion for a low power sniper rifle?  What is the difference between a sniper rifle and a long range varmint rifle or a benchrest target rifle?  How about a "beanfield" rifle, one that is scoped and designed to take deer at long ranges across open fields?  The only component that is connected to a rifle that makes it part of a sniper system is the shooter wielding it.  Other than higher grade service rifles, hunting and target rifles have been drafted into service from time to time to fill the need.  With a improper wording and poor definitions, you end up taking away more than what was intended.  Imagine the hunter who supports the banning of assault weapons when they classify his 94 Winchester .30-30 lever action as a compact, high capacity assault carbine.  Same applies with the goose gun or skeet gun that qualifies as a "trench gun" or "room broom."

[Zut50]

Im sick of the gun debate now but I absoltely have to step in here...

Quote
Originally posted by: Mefistofeles

Quote
They are great fighters and great people

I have to disagree strongly with that statement.   British comedies are esoteric and strange!  Monty Python isn't worthy of standing on the same stage as Jim Carrey.   Their cooking; if you can even call it that is appauling.  Look at their national dishes: kidney pie,black pudding, hagus!  

I'm just kidding I think there's alot to be said for British people.  Just keep them out of your kitchen and away from your comedy clubs.

DIE FOOL! You just don't understand British comedy! Monty Python pioneered a new brand of comedy. The talentless Jim Carey charges $40m for flailing him arms around. American sitcoms are bland and painfully formulaic, and American stand-up is just a commentary on how black people are different from white people or how men are different from women.

Also, do Americans actually have cooking? I dont think meat + fire counts as a recipe!

[Tmagic650]

Some British humor eludes me, but I love Monty Python

[Mefistofeles]

Quote
Also, do Americans actually have cooking?  I dont think meat + fire counts as a recipe!  

Here is a poor paraphrase admiral Yamamoto," if you have seen steaks served in Chicago or eaten ribs inTexas you will know that American meat cannot be defeated."

The real reason the Patriots fought against the British; wasn't for freedom from taxation or the right to own arms.  It was the freedom to eat decent food!   From America comes Kentucky Fried Kitchen, McDonald's, Pizza Hut!

The right to eat and chose decent food in my mind was the primary factor motivating the founding fathers!  

[Zut50]

ROFL

God Bless America!