Sure it does. By supporting the private ownership of motor vehicles, you facilitate the use of those vehicles by drunk drivers, which has certain costs to society in terms of people killed and injured, and property damaged, in drunk driving accidents.
It’s just that the benefits to society of private motor vehicle ownership outweigh the costs of private motor vehicle ownership.
minty green
Proud facilitator of drunk driving deaths
K, I’ll take it:
Denying that you’re part of the problem doesn’t mean you’re not part of the problem; it just means you’re in denial.
Denial that your assertion is even remotely accurate.
Er, do you mean the big London?
If so, guns weren’t legal in the first place (well, not for a long long time anyhow).
Burglary has long been a greater problem over here than in the US (although, conversely, murder is much less frequent, but I’m sure you know that).
As it happens I don’t think suddenly banning guns would suddenly solve America’s ills (although I do think it’s curious that people can buy assault rifles and armour piercing bullets) - there’s too much evidence of other countries with similar gun laws having no comparable problem. So there’s presumably something else at play. But I don’t think there’s a lot thats positive about the right to bear arms. Which I’m sure will have a big impact on your opinions:) .
Arrghh… I had a nice post all ready to go and the hamster’s ate it… Anyhoo, I like Zorro’s pithy post, well said. As far as deaths, according to the CDC, firearms death from 1999 data showed a 6% decrease to 28K and change from 1996. Of those, 57.6% were suicides, approximately 16K.
DrNick wrote:
Thanks for opening this thread DrNick because it’s precisely this kind of bs that needs to be, dare I say it, “nicked” in the bud. One cannot purchase the so-called “armor piercing” bullets, because they are not for sale to the general public. And as for “assault rifles”, one cannot purchase one of them without jumping through a lot of bureaucratic red tape and dropping some serious jingalinga to get one.
I just want to chime in with the fact that there are a significant number of NRA card carrying members who believe in “common sense” gun control, but that is limited to those laws which actually prevent crime and criminals from getting guns. The majority of gun laws in this country today (IMHO) do not prevent crimes or criminals from access to firearms, and that is the crux of the situation.
In ye aulde England, you have never had a history of crimes committed with firearms or other tools of the trade, yet you now have some very draconian gun laws. Has it made a difference, or have the politicians offered a panacea that has no effect? I think its the latter, and unfortunately, some of our anti-gun lobbyist in this country have latched onto that.
As most probably don’t know, the NRA was formed as a hunting, safety, etc., organization over 130 years ago, and it’s only been in the last 30 years, with the advent of the Million Mom march, the Brady Bunch and their ilk, that the NRA has formed a legislative lobby to counteract their money and their connections. I hope as this thread continues, you will learn a lot more than I can share.
How should we address those 30,000 deaths a year? 15,000 of those deaths are suicides and I’m not really interesting in passing laws because some people choose to kill themselves. The other 15,000 deaths are made up of murders and accidents.
Out of that 15,000 how many are gang related? How many are killed because they engage in criminal activities of some kind? How many of the murdered are victims of robbery or domestic violence?
30,000 people die each year because of firearm related injuries? As a gun owner it doesn’t make me lose any sleep.
Marc
There is lots of merit in licensing cars like guns, and it is hard to argue why we should not register and license guns just like we do with cars.
Although I am against it since it is mostly a revenue tax generating idea, and licensing of cars or guns has nothing to do with safety/accidents/fatalities.
At least if we treated cars and guns the same, then our ex-felons would be able to get guns again once they get out of prison, like they used to. There would be no limits on the numbers of cars/guns anyone could buy at any one time, and no limits to the power of each.
No one would ever need any license at all in any state to buy a gun anymore, just as no one needs a license to buy a car today.
To go on public streets with guns and cars, the age limit on guns would drop from 21, to 16, 15, or 14, depending on the state, so lots of youngsters could get to enjoy guns as early as they get to enjoy cars.
As long as you stayed off public streets, you can drive or have your gun with you anywhere, at any age, and with no operators license needed.
The background checks system we now have on guns, would go away, since no such system is used for people who buy cars.
We wouldnt need gun shows anymore, since people would sell guns on street corners, in trading times, etc just like cars are sold today, just show up with the cash, and the car or gun is sold, no questions asked.
As a ccw holder, I could go to any state, all states, even Washington DC and Canada and Mexico with my gun or car, instead of just the 36 states that now allow me to carry a gun.
Except for the taxing, guns would be much more easily available if we registered and licensed and treated guns just like we do cars.
And the benefits to society of private gun ownership outweight the costs of private gun ownership (1.5 million defensive gun uses versus 15,000 deaths). We’ve been over this before, Minty.
Are you using the phrase “small pieces of artillery” as merely a euphemism for rifles and handguns, or do you really mean 2-inch mini-howitzers?
Quite so. And that alleged number is still complete and utter fantasy on the part of the gun fetishists.
Ah - I was unaware of that. In fact, sad to say, my knowledge of US gun purchasing law is probably restricted to that bit in The Terminator where Arnie walks into a shop and buys an arsenal.
God help me, I’m getting into another gun control thread. Even though I know what a swamp they can be. The same arguments keep popping up again and again like one of those whack-a-mole games. It gets discouraging. But…but…there was this:
I thought I’d post a quick drive-by, just saying, yeah I’d be DELIGHTED too, with a link to an old thread in which I discoursed at great length on this very subject. But as I continued scrolling down, I noticed that several posters had already taken up what was, more or less, my argument.
And I thought, wow! Something I wrote seems to be catching on, just a little bit. And damned if it didn’t feel good. Of course the odds are way against their opinions having been influenced by what I wrote…they probably held them before I even joined the SDMB. But still…that tiny, miniscule possibility that I made a difference…feels good. It feels real good.
It also feels good not to have to do the drudge work of looking for that link. Real good, even. Anyway…
DrNick, you said:
Let me turn these questions right around on you. Why do so many citizens of your country (Scotland, UK, EU, whatever you prefer) want their governments to restrict the ability of it’s citizens to purchase firearms?
What good do these laws do?
What would be so bad about losing them?
Ok.
a) It’s not actually an issue - it’s not that we want it, it’s that no-one minds that the the availability is curtailed. There is no recent history of mass gun ownership, and it is a commonly accepted…truism (not sure if that’s the word - maybe belief is what’s wanted) that no-one needs guns to protect themselves.
b) It is my belief that they radically decrease the amount of gun crime/accidents. I have never seen a gun more powerful than a .22 in the hands of anyone other than a soldier or airport policeman. I may well be at a greater risk of burglary, but I’m at a miniscule risk of being shot.
c) It would be much easier for people to get guns, and then more people (innocent people, mostly) would get hurt by them.
Ok.
a) It’s not actually an issue - it’s not that we want it, it’s that no-one minds that the the availability is curtailed. There is no recent history of mass gun ownership, and it is a commonly accepted…truism (not sure if that’s the word - maybe belief is what’s wanted) that no-one needs guns to protect themselves.
b) It is my belief that they radically decrease the amount of gun crime/accidents. I have never seen a gun more powerful than a .22 in the hands of anyone other than a soldier or airport policeman. I may well be at a greater risk of burglary, but I’m at a miniscule risk of being shot.
c) It would be much easier for people to get guns, and then more people (innocent people, mostly) would get hurt by them.
sorry about the double post.
I am impatient and stupid.
Actually, the experience of the 20th century says that you are dead wrong.
The fact is, that the number of people killed by their own governments is far greater, than the number of people killed by fellow armed civilians.
It is not a “truism” at all for the hundreds of millions of people who did not have guns to protect themselves from their own government in so many countries that instituted gun control.
The truth is, that it is NOT easier for innocent people to get hurt when they can easily get guns, the truth is, and the last century proves it, that it is easier for people to get hurt if they are disarmed and only their military and their police have the guns.
“Gun control” has killed many more millions than “the Right to Bear Arms” has.
Yes, guns can be dangerous, they are EXTREMELY dangerous if only the police and army have the guns, and the common citizens dont have any guns.
http://www.geocities.com/dwwsmw54/GC-government_abuses.html
The History of Government Gun Control and Murder
1911: TURKEY ESTABLISHED GUN CONTROL
FROM 1915 TO 1917 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
1929: THE SOVIET UNION ESTABLISHED GUN CONTROL
FROM 1929-1953 about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
1935: CHINA ESTABLISHED GUN CONTROL
FROM 1948 TO 1952 20 MILLION political dissidents who were then unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
1938: GERMANY ESTABLISHED GUN CONTROL
FROM 1939 TO 1945. 13 MILLION Jews, Catholics, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, political dissidents and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
1956: CAMBODIA ESTABLISHED GUN CONTROL
In just two years (1975 to 1977) 1,000,000 educated people who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. [As far as I know, this is STILL going on!]
1964: GUATEMALA ESTABLISHED GUN CONTROL
FROM 1964 to 1981 100,000 Mayan Indians who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
1970: UGANDA ESTABLISHED GUN CONTROL
Over the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were rounded up and killed.
In addition…
to citizens being killed by their OWN governments,
guns can also be used for protection against foreign invaders, and from criminals. The citizens of Great Britain might not think they need guns for protection from an invader or a puppet government , because a lot of Americans came over there in 1941 and prevented Hitler from establishing a puppet government in London.
If the US had instead let Europe fend for itself in ww2, I wonder how many British citizens would not have cared that they had no guns to defend themselves?
If you want to throw out statistics about how many people commit suicide with guns, how many people are killed by guns because the police or potential rape victim shot her attacker, how many people are killed by criminals with guns, and how many gun accidents there are, then, to be fair with the numbers, you should also include how many people are killed by the guns of their own police and their own army.
DrNick wrote:
Ah, but you’ve come to the right place to have those myths dispelled. Terminator (IMHO) was a great action flick with the typical “director’s license” to defy reality which has been going on for years. Just like the good guy has a six shooter and never reloads, and the bad guys couldn’t hit the water if they fell out of a boat.
What store can I purchase the same kind of gun magazines that Arnnie uses in his movies?
They are so small, and they seem to hold about 200 - 300 rounds( I have seen Arnnie shoot on “full auto” for up to a full minute without changing those tiny clips.)
Where is that store in California located, where you can buy all those weapons without permits?
That movie was “fiction”?
To be honest, I don’t rmember the Terminator actually buying anything from the gun store. I believe he paid for everything with a bullet to two directed at the guy running the shop.