I have been looking at the same numbers today. I believe that the FBI numbers are compiled from the Uniform Crime Reporting system while the CDC figures are from a study of death records and causes of death.
And THIS is irrational fear of guns.
There are 300 MILLION guns in America. 30,000 gun deaths. Of those 18,000 are suicide and 12,000 are homocides. Accidental child death is about 100 per year. So clearly, the overwhelming majority of gun owners never “lose their cool” and shoot someone. Do you ever lose your cool and drive someone off the road? Do you ever lose your cool and stab someone with a steak knife? How can we trust you around cars and knives?
Guns are used in personal defense between 65,000 and 2.5 million times a year depending on who you believe. The Department of Justice puts the number at 1.5 million instances of guns used in self defense every year, I think the DOJ is a pretty credible source.
Or they keep other people from fucking shit up.
You can do that with a handgun.
So? You have yet to justify why I can’t have them other than your instinctive fear of firearms.
See Afghanistan over the last 40 years of so.
If by sensible regulation you mean banning a type of firearm that is responsible for 4% of all gun murders in America and the previous banning of which proved to have no effect whatsoever on gun violence, then no we can’t do that.
Universal background checks, national licensing requirements, a national gun registry. These three things will reduce gun violence much much more than a banning assault weapons. Cracking down on FFL dealers with multiple violations would also be a good move. Most guns used in crimes are recently purchased guns. More than half the guns used in gun crimes can be traced back to less than 1% of gun dealers.
Its actually the opposite. Most guns used in crimes are obtained illegally.
So was the revolutionary war I suppose. Same with the insurrection against Assad and Qaddafi.
I don’t know of any insurance company that would insure against a criminal act. Accidental discharge, sure; but murder, no.
Your licensing idea sounds stupid. Most people are talking more about something more like a drivers license when they talk about licensing.
The CDC numbers are more accurate.
It’s far less than 4%. Nearly ten times less, in fact – even Dianne Feinstein only claims that 385 people were killed with assault weapons since the expiry of the last AWB in 2004.
You don’t know all the gun-control advocates or all the gun owners. Yet you make such broad generalizations about them. You know there are some people who can be a part of both groups. Your thinking seems to be too black and white with no room for gray.
In what way are they militant? Is there anything wrong with being vocal about issues we are concerned with?
There is no way that 88 murdered people can be “statistically negligible.” How many murdered people would it take for you to consider it to be otherwise?
How many of your friends or co-workers been shot to death? When it happens to someone close to you, any murder or suicide by gunfire is not “statistically negligible” anymore. And the fact that you modify “negligible” with “statistically” doesn’t change any of what I’m saying.
I haven’t heard any proposals by anyone in power that involve disarming everyone.
Because it has something to do with their ability to do their jobs and stay alive? Maybe they don’t want civilians to have any weapon that would pierce their vests. How do you know what hundreds of thousands of police officers prefer?
What I am suggesting to you is that you could argue more effectively if you didn’t state your opinions as if they are a known facts.
These are appeals to emotion, not reasonable arguments. Statistical negligence is a matter of magnitudes, not individuals. Mass shootings are outliers in gun murder statistics.
If that’s the case, I don’t want the police to have anything that will pierce me. Sound fair? I guess it really is a completely different mindset that is actually comfortable with living under the guns of an armed and privileged class. I do not understand it at all. Police officers are our fellow citizens; we should support and stand with them, but not place them on pedestals or be subservient to them.
Well, too bad that whenever this is suggested, Your side starts screaming slippery-slope and that all these things are just to make a list to where to go searching when the total ban comes.
Also Russian revolution. And many others that You probably would call commie conspiracies.
Maybe, for example Adam Lanza stole his guns.
Why is this stupid. Things change, people change, it is a good idea to renew the licenses often and check out if the person is still OK to have a gun.
But of course Your side sees it this way:
1 - if a gun is taken away even no crime has yet been committed, then the rights have been violated and the system doesn’t work.
2 - if the gun isn’t taken away before the crime have been committed, the system doesn’t work.
3 - if the gun is taken away and Your lawyers make authorities to give it back and then the guy commits a crime, it was that violation if his rights that made him flip ( and You are innocent even it was You who made him to get his gun back )… aaaand the system doesn’t work…
I take that as ‘none’ or ‘I have no emotions’.
I don’t understand this. Why would police shoot You, are You a criminal?
And if You don’t want anyone to shoot You, gun control might be a good idea. Maybe even total banning…
There were nine people milling about outside the Empire State building one day who I am pretty sure are asking themselves that exact question.
You do realize the police aren’t perfect, right? Sometimes they miss, and sometimes those misses hit innocent people. Sometimes they raid the wrong house, sometimes they mistake you getting your wallet out to present your ID as a “furtive movement” and shoot you. And occasionally they’re just plain corrupt or sadistic.
You are absolutely right. No-one should have guns.
Glad to hear it! Now to use typical disarmament logic: we’ll start with the low-hanging fruit and disarm the police first. It’ll set an example!
Sigh…
Unless You’re not counter-whooshing Me, let Me be clearer. My point was: cops wouldn’t be so fast with their guns, if there wouldn’t be so much other people carrying guns.
Hold the phone. Is HurricaneDitka suggesting that the people who were accidentally hit by police gunfire should have shot back?
Are you suggesting that there is some way of telling whether or not you are shot accidentally, or on purpose?
No. But I’m familiar with that story. Some nut shot some other guy, and then the cops showed up to take care of the situation by spraying bullets all over the place. The bystanders saw it all going down and were in a shitty place at a shitty time.
The ideal thing to do in that situation for the bystanders would have been to hope like hell to get out of the way, not shoot the cops.
No. They had just shot by two trigger-happy NYPD cops. The last thing I’d suggest they do is give them an excuse to shoot more people, or shoot the people they’d already shot some more.
I think the ideal situation is to not live in NYC. And I never suggested they shoot the cops. I was merely pointing out that sometimes the police shoot innocent people.
You’re right. The 4% number is the number for all rifles (of which “assault weapons” are a subset).
OK, so “your side” has idiots that think that banning a type of gun is going to have some sort of effect on gun violence despite the fact that “assault weapons” account for less than 4% of all gun deaths (its actually a LOT lower), while the idiots on “my side” is paranoid about democracy falling into tyranny, something that has in fact happened before.
Reread the suggestion. He is not suggesting licensing the owner of the gun, I agree with licensing gun owners the same way you would license car drivers. He was suggesting licensing the gun for particular purposes.
cite.
Well, at least you are honest about your ultimate objective. An objective that I think many gun control advocates share. I can even sign on to this objective and I will give up my guns as soon as the police feel comfortable sending out their patrolmen without guns. That is when I will feel comfortable not having a gun.
Double-sigh…
You might want to re-read posts from 207 to 210…
I know I’ve said this several times before, but:
Imagine the outrage if the US Government said “We’ve decided that no-one is allowed to own a car that can go faster than 110kmh [or whatever the speed limit is there], nor can anyone have a car that looks like a racing or sports car - including but not limited to cars with spoilers, bodykits, or engines exceeding a specified horsepower/torque rating.”
I would suggest that anyone who says “Meh, fine by me” is being disingenous, and even if they really were OK with that, millions of other people - people who don’t own “racing” or “sports” cars and don’t drive well in excess of the speed limit - would object to such a measure purely on principle.
It is my understanding gun owners in the US feel the same way.
I didn’t mean that as a gotcha. I hear see too many folks who are overly focused on assault weapons and don’t really have the balls to say that they want to get rid of all guns. We can talk about the role of firearms in a civilized society but you can’t put this genie back in the bottle by banning guns. There are THREE HUNDRED MILLION firearms out there, are you going to go door to door confiscating guns or are you just going to collect guns from the law abiding citizens?
If we were building a society from scratch, then sure, maybe we don’t have an individual right to firearms but that is not our situation.
Actually, collecting guns from the law abiding citizens is just about the only way that any kind of large-scale gun ban can work. The trick is, we need different laws for the law-abiding citizens to follow. They keep trying different laws in hopes of getting something that will stick; it looks like that some sort of registration is going to be the first largely-accepted change that would eventually lead somewhere useful to them.
I see. You admit that You knew perfectly well it wasn’t a serious suggestion. Still You represented it as such, and in essence misquoted Me deliberately. Which, as You surely know, is violating the rules of this board. Tell Me why shouldn’t I report to the moderators?