The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

[notdrunk]

Quite. You guys can debate the detail and niceties of the Constitution and its various amendments until the proverbial cows come home, but the facts speak - eloquently - for themselves.

If you can't see a relationship between the vast volumes of firearms held in private hands, with little control in comparison with other developed countries, and the daily litany of slaughter on your streets, in your schools, in your colleges, in your movie theatres, in your homes, you're either in denial, delusional or simply not very bright.

That's my last word on the matter; arguing with the wilfully deaf is a waste of breath which I could put to better use elsewhere.

The study that martin48 is talking about also included suicide by firearms in the tally. It is a fact that Japan has a higher suicide rate than the United States and most of the developed world. However, Japanese citizens use other means to commit suicide because of strict laws on firearms in their country. Since firearm laws in the United States are lax compared to other developed nations, suicidal Americans are more likely use a firearm to commit suicide in the United States than a suicidal Japanese individual. So, there is a distortion in the numbers because of suicides. A year ago, the Washington Post did article on gun deaths and it came to an interesting conclusion: White people are more likely to use a gun to commit suicide than be murdered by a shooter; black people are more likely to die from a shooter than commit suicide by gun.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/fea...ce-in-america/

Yes, everybody knows that the United States has higher gun violence; however, don't distort the numbers and blow it out of proportion.

[broncofan]

The study that martin48 is talking about also included suicide by firearms in the tally. It is a fact that Japan has a higher suicide rate than the United States and most of the developed world. However, Japanese citizens use other means to commit suicide because of strict laws on firearms in their country.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/fea...ce-in-america/

Yes, everybody knows that the United States has higher gun violence; however, don't distort the numbers and blow it out of proportion.

I don't think the numbers were really deceptive. Some people commit suicide after much deliberation and some people do it impulsively. The same can be said for murder. The more efficiently the object in question completes the act, the more likely it's going to cause unnecessary deaths based on impulsive action.

Suicide rates often vary based on cultural factors including, significantly, that culture's beliefs and attitudes towards suicide. But it is likely that the fact that Japan has fewer guns means fewer people will commit suicide impulsively. But a gun is not the only way to commit suicide or murder. Nobody suggested it was. Only that when someone kills with a gun it is far from inevitable they would have done the same thing with less efficient means.

[notdrunk]

I don't think the numbers were really deceptive. Some people commit suicide after much deliberation and some people do it impulsively. The same can be said for murder. The more efficiently the object in question completes the act, the more likely it's going to cause unnecessary deaths based on impulsive action.

Suicide rates often vary based on cultural factors including, significantly, that culture's beliefs and attitudes towards suicide. But it is likely that the fact that Japan has fewer guns means fewer people will commit suicide impulsively. But a gun is not the only way to commit suicide or murder. Nobody suggested it was. Only that when someone kills with a gun it is far from inevitable they would have done the same thing with less efficient means.

My points are don't blow it out of proportion and understand the numbers. For example, Robert mentions "slaughter" in his latest post. Slaughter is blowing it out of proportion. According to the numbers ("facts"), there isn't a slaughter in the streets. The early 90s were way violent compared to now. Most gun deaths are suicides. The most common known crimes are property crimes.

I am not saying that United States is Maybury; however, it isn't the dirty world of Serpico.

[trish]

The Second Amendment was based on a need; the need of the State to maintain a well regulated militia. At that time the State needed members of its militia to provide their own firearms when possible. That need no longer exists. Given the nature of modern weaponry it is no longer safe for the citizenry at large to arm themselves with the weapons of war. There is no longer any need to own a firearm, nor is there any longer a need for the Second Amendment. Its a vestige of day long past. Let’s repeal it before someone loses an eye.

[martin48]

Some hope!

[Prospero]

High school kids gunned down, A shooter slays people watching a movie. A soldier goes on the rampage at a military base. Militia men face down US Government employees to defend a racist thief. And on and on.

Out of proportion in using the word slaughter to discuss the US obsession with guns? I don't think so notdrunk....

[martin48]

Gun Nutter
A person that refuses to discuss any rational attempt at gun control.


A person "says we can no longer stand by and do nothing while our children get slaughtered"

A gun nutter says "guns don't kill people"


From the Urban Dictionary

[notdrunk]

High school kids gunned down, A shooter slays people watching a movie. A soldier goes on the rampage at a military base. Militia men face down US Government employees to defend a racist thief. And on and on.

Out of proportion in using the word slaughter to discuss the US obsession with guns? I don't think so notdrunk....

Every year more people die on the road than die from firearms. You can look up the numbers to verify. Of course, people don't bring up slaughter when talking about fatalities caused by vehicles. There is an US obsession with cars too. So, yes, it is out of proportion.

[broncofan]

Every year more people die on the road than die from firearms. You can look up the numbers to verify. Of course, people don't bring up slaughter when talking about fatalities caused by vehicles. There is an US obsession with cars too. So, yes, it is out of proportion.

I drive places I could not plausibly walk. Driving enables me to see my relatives and aging parents. There is a danger inherent in driving but we accept the fact that modern life is impracticable without it.

On the other hand guns have the sole function of causing harm. When used for their intended purpose they maim and kill. Their utility is limited to the rarest of circumstances and is greatly outweighed by the destruction they wreak. I can't imagine what would compel you to compare modern transportation to devices whose utility can only be defined in terms of how well they threaten, maim, or kill.

[broncofan]

I think I had this debate about a hundred pages back but it's worth noting as an analogy that people are willing to accept risks for those things that are indispensable. You see this most keenly in the regulation of drugs. If a drug saves lives then it is marketable even if it has a lot of side effects and low toxicity to efficacy.

People shouldn't object to risk alone. They should object to senseless risk. Uncalculated risk. Risk without any expected payoff. What does a gun offer for the risk that a child will accidentally blow his face off? Laughter? Bliss? A cure for disease?