Is that "the rate of gun misuse while on duty", or are you comparing two vastly different things?
Gun Control
- Thread starter larryselbows
- Start date
Is that "the rate of gun misuse while on duty", or are you comparing two vastly different things?
If the number of deaths from SUVs in cases of accident/suicide/domestic abuse climbs higher than the number of successful uses of an SUV, we probably will.
If you replace "UN" with "EU", then yes, I look forward to when our culture is enlightened enough to realize that guns aren't necessary for personal peace and security, and that arming a populace results more in escalation than safety. The government can always afford better guns. Putting guns in the hands of the populace doesn't prevent tyranny (see any number of current countries for confirmation on that score). Tyranny is accepted, or not, as a matter of culture.
Why does the universe being mechanical make it not fun?
You mean, as opposed to the conclusion that fewer gun owners would be safer than more gun owners?
Some people think that any non-mammal meat tastes like chicken.
As opposed to you telling me what I can and cannot do?
Maybe it does taste like chicken to them.
Yep. That hasn't been the point since word 1. You can go ahead and claim that it's what you have been saying all along, but it isn't, so I guess we're at an impasse.
You're the recess lady at the elementary school. There has been an outbreak of fights on the playground. You've decided that all the A students need to sit quietly in at their desks during recess. One of those overachievers may suddenly snap and start a brawl. Less children on the playground = less chance of a fight. Except that all the surly kids, who start the fights, are still out at recess. Bravo.
I'll say this one more time, and you can disregard it yet again: A law that is purposely constructed to set limitations ONLY on those who already abide by the rules DOES NOT increase safety.
Edit:
I thought about it for a few minutes and decided I wanted to add this; Brow, you and I can agree on one thing - if nobody had guns, we wouldn't have gun violence. But the notion that eliminating any gun from any situation automatically makes that situation safer is just not correct. You would have to eliminate every gun from every situation. Do you think it's merely coincidence that the vast majority of mass shootings happen in "gun-free" zones? 2nd amendment completely aside, getting the ball rolling by disarming law abiding people is as ***-backwards an approach as you could take.
Last edited:
Here is a fairly complete discussion about what is known currently about gun violence.
https://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/
It is a little lengthly.
But the key points is that murder rate and number of gun-murders has gone down for 3 straight years.
It is a point of contention if increasing the number of concealed carry citizen reduces the overall crime level.
Read all the details if you want an article linked to research papers.
https://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/
It is a little lengthly.
But the key points is that murder rate and number of gun-murders has gone down for 3 straight years.
It is a point of contention if increasing the number of concealed carry citizen reduces the overall crime level.
Read all the details if you want an article linked to research papers.
Then shouldn't that same metric be used for guns? The successful uses of guns far, far, far outweighs the accidnet/suicide/domestic abuse uses of guns.
from the article you linked:
So let me make sure I'm reading this correctly... if we tighten the restrictions on CCW holders, suicides will cease to occur. Is that about right?
As I start reading the article one thing caught my attention. This boogeyman known as the "gun show loop-hole." First, there is not a "gun show loop-hole." The "loop-hole," if you want to call it that, is that a private citizen can sell his or her privately owned guns to another private citizen without running the instant background check.
I've been to a couple gun shows. I'm not a fan. I tried buying my first gun at a gun show because I was led to believe the prices were fantastic and there was no need for a background check. When I tried to purchase a used 10/22 (pretty standard beginner rifle) for what new ones were going for from a vendor who was also a FFL holder who owned a gun store I was presented with the standard background check form. But hey wait, I'm at a gun show. This is a wild west free for all isn't it? The answer is that it is not a free for all at all. As far as I could tell every seller at the gun show was a FFL holder (federal firearm licence, basically someone allowed to sell guns commercially) and any FFL holder who sells a gun has to run the background check, even at a gun show! The only people who can sell guns at a gun show without running a background check are private citizens who rent a booth at a gun show to sell their privately owned guns to other private citizens for the purchasers own personal use. So just like I could sell my guns on KSL without running a background check I could conceivably rent a booth at a gun show and do the same thing. Only, I didn't see any booths where people were selling their personal stockpile of guns. Not one.
So this "gun show loop-hole" is yet another red herring in the gun debate.
I'm all for requiring background checks for all gun sales at all gun shows. For one, I don't think it changes anything because from my experience all gun sales at gun shows are from an FFL holder to a customer and require a background check according to current law. For another, if my experience was not typical I'm fine with making anyone who sets up a booth at a gun show do background checks on their customers, because by virtue of renting space at a gun show with the intent of selling guns you are not really a private citizen selling a gun to another private citizen. So, you should have to follow the same law that any other commercial firearms sells have to follow.
But that's not what closing the "gun show loop-hole means." What it means is requiring all transfers of gun ownership, even from father to son, neighbor to neighbor, KSL user to KSL user, to go to a FFL holder, pay them a fee for their service, pay for the background check and have the purchaser pass the background check before a gun can change hands. If that's something people think is going to help then I can get behind that. It's a PITA in certain cases and without actual gun registration it's essentially unenforceable, but hey let's pass some laws and pat ourselves on the back for doing something!
I've been to a couple gun shows. I'm not a fan. I tried buying my first gun at a gun show because I was led to believe the prices were fantastic and there was no need for a background check. When I tried to purchase a used 10/22 (pretty standard beginner rifle) for what new ones were going for from a vendor who was also a FFL holder who owned a gun store I was presented with the standard background check form. But hey wait, I'm at a gun show. This is a wild west free for all isn't it? The answer is that it is not a free for all at all. As far as I could tell every seller at the gun show was a FFL holder (federal firearm licence, basically someone allowed to sell guns commercially) and any FFL holder who sells a gun has to run the background check, even at a gun show! The only people who can sell guns at a gun show without running a background check are private citizens who rent a booth at a gun show to sell their privately owned guns to other private citizens for the purchasers own personal use. So just like I could sell my guns on KSL without running a background check I could conceivably rent a booth at a gun show and do the same thing. Only, I didn't see any booths where people were selling their personal stockpile of guns. Not one.
So this "gun show loop-hole" is yet another red herring in the gun debate.
I'm all for requiring background checks for all gun sales at all gun shows. For one, I don't think it changes anything because from my experience all gun sales at gun shows are from an FFL holder to a customer and require a background check according to current law. For another, if my experience was not typical I'm fine with making anyone who sets up a booth at a gun show do background checks on their customers, because by virtue of renting space at a gun show with the intent of selling guns you are not really a private citizen selling a gun to another private citizen. So, you should have to follow the same law that any other commercial firearms sells have to follow.
But that's not what closing the "gun show loop-hole means." What it means is requiring all transfers of gun ownership, even from father to son, neighbor to neighbor, KSL user to KSL user, to go to a FFL holder, pay them a fee for their service, pay for the background check and have the purchaser pass the background check before a gun can change hands. If that's something people think is going to help then I can get behind that. It's a PITA in certain cases and without actual gun registration it's essentially unenforceable, but hey let's pass some laws and pat ourselves on the back for doing something!
I read that half of gun deaths in the U.S. are from suicides. Does anyone know if that's a legit stat? I don't think those cases should be included in the numbers used in the gun debate unless people really want to argue about how to prevent suicides and think taking away gun rights is justified on the grounds of reducing suicide, which I don't think will fly.