Is that all you’ve got for us? :rolleyes:
Cool.
How many lives saved do you think we need before something is deemed worthwhile?
There’s a ton of gun tests in gun magazines. Always noted are rounds fired and failures, if any. Cause of the failure is noted if the cause can be determined.
It was pretty universal to have no failures (or at worse, ammo failures) recorded.
Do you think gun companies don’t test new models before manufacture?
Do you apply the same rigor when you buy a car?
As far as the lock under discussion, it’s new tech. It’s already admitted to fail if the finger isn’t clean. It’s for sale despite that glaring flaw in operation.
If they’re willing to sell with a known flaw, are there other flaws not revealed?
Not having a left handed option is a oversight of a magnitude that it makes me want to know what else was overlooked.
Do you think it’s reasonable to consider outlawing crank/bump-stock modification hardware, along with the possibility of requiring manufacturers to make such mods more difficult or impossible to jury-rig?
Why, will the next shooting be from a hotel?
For years, we’ve been proposing the most innocuous, make-guns-a-little-safer-around-the-edges-without-interfering-with-anyone’s-‘freedoms’ sorts of proposals, figuring not even the gun addicts could object to them. And this is the crap we get for proposing modest reforms that might do something about some shootings, though maybe not the one that just happened.
We propose stuff like that - closing the gun-show loophole and stuff like that - because, you know, the next shooting won’t be the same as the last shooting, but it’s worth trying to stop some shootings in a way that isn’t an imposition on anyone, that one would think everyone could agree on.
I guess we’ve been trying too hard not to be an imposition on gun-lovers. Our bad.
Yeah, I’m sure gun magazines - supported by advertising from gun makers - are a great, reliable source of failure rates. I’m shocked, shocked! that you say its ‘universal to have no failures’. Shocked, I tell you.
And in any event - the plural of anecdote is not ‘data’.
Are you saying that there’s no published data on failure rates for your favorite toy, that you wouldn’t risk your life or the lives of your family without knowing how reliable they are?
Yes. Actually, far more than you do, apparently. Especially since as a family we use the car a lot.
You’re calling this a ‘fail’ or ‘known flaw’ like it doesn’t work under normal operating conditions. I’m trying to figure out why you’d be using -any- gun with wet/dirty fingers; seems unsafe to begin with.
But hey, it’s not a perfect solution so clearly we should just give up and admit that as Americans we (and by ‘we’, I mean YOU) are too stupid to figure out how to prevent something that EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRY ON EARTH has figured out how to prevent.
How many lives are saved by the use of firearms in self-defense?
So… “defense” isn’t “shooting someone”?
Rrrright…
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
An interesting thought, although I presume you mean under 1000 each year rather than for 2 decades.
Still, although children’s deaths alone are more — and I’ll suggest they are not the only dead from ‘unintention’ — there’s also unpleasantly painful injuries to treat each year.
Now, a study based on data from 2012 to 2014 suggests that, on average, 5,790 children in the United States receive medical treatment in an emergency room each year for a gun-related injury. About 21% of those injuries are unintentional, similar to the third-grader’s case.
*From 2012 to 2014, on average, 1,297 children died annually from a gun-related injury in the US, according to the study, published in the journal Pediatrics on Monday.
*CNN 2017 06 27
** I will also assume, feeling generous, that all these hospital injuries are paid for by the State or Federal government; since it would be invidious to take in a dozen kids at an incident and treat them each according to their parent’s insurance.
Anyhow, I rarely feel proud of my country, but despite children being murdered or having avoidable accidents every year, very few of them go to the NHS with bullets inside them. Maybe none on average.
In fact for all gun homicide from Quora :
*According to Wikipedia it is about 38 homicides per year in the UK due to firearms.
*
*The UK’s rate per 100,000 population is similar to that of Germany. The USA’s is similar to Nicaragua. *
*For the past two years, at least one person a week has been shot by a toddler in America – in a horrifying insight into the scale of accidental gun deaths in the country.
Someone should stop that toddler.
Geeze, I sleep a little and the thread gets away from me.
I think this is proof that I’ve been unclear. There are professional drivers (ambulance, bus and semi for a short list) I would propose that them driving is equivalent to a professional with a gun (soldiers or police). If “civilian” driving disappeared tomorrow deaths in the country would decline and people life would be less fun (more difficult). If “civilian” gun usage disappeared tomorrow overall deaths would decrease and peoples life would be less fun. There is a group that has to drive to live that don’t fall under the professional driver category those that can’t make it to work without a car due to lack of public transportation, living far from where they work and not being able to afford to move. This group is tiny. A similar sized group are those who need a gun to live subsistence hunters and people who need a gun for immediate self-defense. Both of these groups are also tiny but I would propose that they are larger than the number of people who need a car to work if for no other reason then states have taken active steps to keep the later group alive but I haven’t seen anything efforts to help the former.
Ok, fine I’ll use luxury rather than fun since that will apparently make your panties unbunch.
So now you agree with me I think we can move on.
I generally stay out of the gun control threads since people like you are much more knowledgeable than I am but in this case, I thought I might be able to add a moderate viewpoint. I’ll take your word on him being reasonable.
I agree guns aren’t cars but neither is alcohol marijuana. That doesn’t mean that they can’t be regulated similarly. I think that a useful conversation can be had about their differences and how that should affect their regulations, for instance, I’m not aware of any medical benefits of alcohol while some people think that pot has some so that difference should create a difference in their regulation. Likewise, it is difficult to kill 59 people with a car while unfortunately possible with guns so that should be the basis for the difference in regulations.
The fool doesn’t understand that some American problems are so great, and so endemic, that they can only be solved by snide rhetorical turds lobbed by a smug foreigner.
Be sure to ice that arm. We need you now more than ever.
Actually, presenting a gun can have the effect of stopping an attacker without actually shooting.
Not always but it does happen.
And note I did say I have not shot someone nor do I have the desire to.
Well, let’s see: the cost of having all these guns around is ~35,000 lives per year, as of 2015. At $8M per life, that’s a cost $280,000,000,000 per year.
At 5% inflation (which is way more than we’ve got), an income stream of $280B/year has a present value of $5.6 trillion. (At 2% inflation, which is about where we are, it would be more like $14 trillion. But let’s go with the lower figure.) That’s really a cost stream, of course.
The guesstimates I’ve heard suggest that it isn’t clear whether there’s more or less than one privately-owned gun for every man, woman, and child in the U.S. (325 million). Suppose that’s a massive underestimate, and there’s actually 500 million privately-owned guns in the U.S.
If we could declare them all illegal, and confiscate them all, reimbursing their owners up to $5000 apiece, that would be $2.5 trillion, max.
Looks to me like universal confiscation has a pretty good cost/benefit ratio. 
I thought that if you were in enough danger to pull a gun, you were in enough danger to shoot the person endangering you?
To be fair, I think the saying is that you shouldn’t point a gun at someone unless you’re willing to shoot if need be.
And ‘presenting’ a gun could just mean pulling up your shirt to show the (formerly) concealed handgun at your waist.
It is difficult to come up with a solid number for that. Nevertheless the numerous studies done consistently point to having a gun increasing your risks of death rather than mitigating them.
About the same number of people die from alcohol related accidents as die from firearm related homicide. We can save 10k lives a year by reinstating Prohibition, right?
That’s because most shootings, like most crime in general, goes on between people who know each other.
Home security systems probably save more lives than guns ‘save’ - by making it less likely people try to break in to your home in the first place.
Also, I don’t worry about my 7yr old son accidentally discovering my home alarm system and accidentally shooting my 5-year old daughter. So bonus points for that.