Sure, because most “good” uses of guns dont includes pulling the trigger. I have given on this board the two times I had a “good” gun use, which prevented violent crimes- but I didnt have to shoot anyone.
Guns are very safe.
You dont think a unarmed person can kill or hurt or rape someone?
And, you’d fine someone who shot a armed assailant? Even cops?
Suicide may be a right that I agree with, but easy access to suicide in a way that tempts people who are just having a momentary period of feeling down is a different matter.
As I’ve said before, if you equipped every alarm clock with a “Just Kill Me Now!” button next to the snooze, do you think that suicide would go up?
Do you think that it would be a good idea to equip them like that?
And that number is going down, due to laws and regulations and social pressures. It’ll take a while for it to really level off, as there are people who are dying from smoking related illness right now who quit smoking decades ago.
The effect of guns is a bit more immediate. You don’t die from having having been a gun owner, or being around guns years ago, you usually only die from encountering a gun today. Any effects of tobacco policies will not be seen in the mortality statistics for decades. Effects of gun control policies can be seen much more immediately.
But, the first tobacco number is basically indistinguishable from suicide, and the second is very similar to people being irresponsible with firearms and harming those around them while enjoying “their rights”.
We have made laws about not being able to smoke in many public enclosed places to address those numbers and to reduce the harm associated with smoking.
A surprisingly few number of them are traffic related, but as is, we do pass laws to reduce those, making drinking and driving illegal. I have surprisingly encountered those who are against DUI laws, so I’ve stopped assuming that my interlocutor sees eye to eye on that. Are you against DUI laws?
But, there are many laws about alcohol. You can’t have alcohol in public, you can’t have it if you aren’t of age, you can’t consume too much of it and then subject yourself to the public, if you consume too much, you cannot use it as an excuse for assault or property damage, if a bartender gives you too much, and then you go on to do something harmful to yourself or others because he gave you too much, he can be found liable. We make laws and regulations to try to address the harms that alcohol causes society.
So, great, you brought up some other problems in our society. Problems that we are working on, and doing so successfully. Why you would bring up the problems that we are successfully working on as an excuse to not do anything to work on the harms that the free availability of guns causes is a mystery.
I’ve prevented at least 4 violent crimes, and I’ve never used a gun to do so(though a dog was involved in one of them). I didn’t have to shoot anybody either.
Unless you believe suicidal feelings are often very temporary. (This is well supported) and acces to gun will kill you 97% of the time; cutting or poison only succeeds 8% of attempts.
Then suicide with a gun is a gun death.
Again: nitpicking at a number, introducing a ton of irrelevant statistics, is not a debate.
Your toys kill people (the most likely victim is you, closely followed by your loved ones): make them safe.
There are warnings on tobacco, DUI is a crime. Stop trying to obfuscate the issue.
The registration agreement makes clear that this type of post is over the line. “Do not post threats or state or imply that any individual or group is deserving of harm.”
Good to know.
What’s an “electronic pill bottle”?
Exactly. We tried that, and it did not appear to have much of an effect.
What is a “large ammo ban”? Like 50 BMG (zero murders by civilians)? Or like limiting the amount of ammo people can buy? I never understood why people would want to encourage untrained gun owners.
You can find lots of countries with high murder and strict gun control, and others with low levels of both. None of that is evidence for anything; that and your examples are not controlled experiments and involve many other societal factors. But it sure casts a lot of doubt on a causal relationship.
The first I heard of them was in the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when they came out with medications that had to be taken multiple times a day, and they would give off a signal when it was time to take that particular medication. Some people with organ transplants or other complex medical conditions also use them.
They can also be used to block access to meds, as in people with addiction issues who are using a controlled substtance.
Such as? And are the gun laws enforced?
California has strict gun laws, relative to much of the country, and this NY Times article says that our firearm death rate is half that of Florida.
Ah, but that guy killed lots of people anyway, you say. We passed a proposition against high capacity magazines in 2016, which was to go into affect in 2017. Why was the shooter able to buy one anyhow? Because the ban did not go into affect due to a lawsuit brought by the NRA.
I consider them accomplices.
BTW, we have a low gun-death rate despite having lots of illegal immigrants who the racist Trumpists think bring crime.
Think of how many American lives could be saved if the entire country had California’s gun laws.
You responded to a poster talking about “weapon bans”, and you replied saying the above.
The truth is the US has never had an assault weapon ban. They were never illegal. The actual truth is there was a 10 year ban from 1994-2004 on SALES. But the ones that were already out there in people’s hands were too numerous to count and were completely unnafected by the ban on sales. The ban on sales only counted for under6% of firearm sales anyway!
While it was a step in the right direction and may have saved lives (there is literally no way to know) if could never have been effective on a large scale against gun deaths. Everyone with common sense knows how disingenuous it is to say “we tried it and it didn’t work”.
Let me paraphrase here:
“I reject your facts!”
Obfuscating is a great debating tactic, especially when you are wrong. It looks like you have a point even if all you are saying is: “but ma guns!” It is also tiresome and dishonest.
Thanks, interesting. Are these still around?
Switzerland is very safe and has somewhat lax gun laws. Stricter than many states, much looser than California et al.
Czech Republic, Slovakia, and the Balkan countries, which allow easy carry laws. Among the safest European countries.
The states have varying gun laws, but among the strict states, California has among the retardedest. They have zero basis in science, and only follow gun control trends of the week.
Garen Wintemute is a gun control activist who claims objectivity. But a better metric of state safeness is intentional homicide rate. Florida’s 5.0 is not much higher than California’s 4.6. But e.g. loose gun law states like New Hampshire, North Dakota, Maine, or heavily armed Idaho are 1.0 1.3 1.7 and 1.9. What mostly matters is inequality, gang crime, and resulting police heavy handedness.
Fuck Trump. NRA is mediocre at best too. But you can’t dislike a group and then decide that those who oppose them must therefore be great. That’s why we have Trump.
“High” (Standard) capacity magazines don’t provide any benefit with minimal training. Reloading a gun is trivial.
Assault weapons aren’t a real thing. It’s a completely cosmetic argument. Equivalent to “legitimate rape” or antivax non-scientific “theories.”
You’re right that a lack of sales doesn’t immediately remove possession. But again 10 years might not be enough, but at some point you have to stop and consider whether it’s an experiment that provides results or not.
In 100 years, there will be fewer guns. But it’s basically a mechanical engineering restriction that anyone with a machine shop and potential malfeasance can surmount. Luddite at that point.
You’d make a great anti-abortion, anti-climate change activist. No facts from you, just emotion. Some of the above posters I disagree with, but they’ve made good arguments. By the way, you’ve been a member for 16 years, but I don’t recognize your name. Just started posting again last year, which part of Russia are you from?
It is a term that exists so it is a real thing. The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.”
The issue is what types of guns are encompassed by the term in civilain life. There is a lot of debate (and much sneering) and it’s an issue with many potential pitfalls for the uneducated. I don’t like using the term because it is imprecise, but I used it in this thread for mere convenience and because others were using is similarly. It’s not a point worth arguing about, but fun for people like you to bring up and think you scored a point.
You scored zero points.
Assault rifles are a thing that exists and follows your definition. Legally owned assault rifles have killed about 2 human beings in the US since 1934. One of these murderers was a cop. Pretty much nobody owns these unless they are very rich. I’m not convinced they are particularly dangerous because physics. Mainly beneficial in wartime.
Assault weapons is a weasel word term for “guns we don’t like.” They’re probably black which makes then extra super mega dangerous.
Okay, in this thread lets call them “guns we don’t like”. It was your choice and that’s what you came up with.
I don’t understand your decision. All proposed laws and restrictions are literally based upon color and aesthetic standards. Do you think blackness increases lethality against civilians?
Do not make trolling accusations in this forum.
Sorry.
Is this a mod thing or not though?
Because they control ammunition rather than the gun. With no ammo it’s just a badly designed club.
This figure is, as must be pointed out every time it comes up, grossly misleading at best.
Empirically, most people who attempt suicide regret it immensely and do not go on to try it again. Additionally, suicide is, for the most part, a spur-of-the-moment thing - most suicides don’t feature extensive planning. And finally, suicide by gun is far more likely to succeed than any comparable measures. Add these facts together, and we find that having access to a gun is, in fact, a substantial indicator for suicide risk.
Your view of suicide is incredibly naive and not supported by the medical community. You call it a “basic human right”, but in fact the vast majority of suicides are brought on by mental disorders, are not undertaken with a clear head, and are regretted by those who attempt.
Y’know, we’re actually doing things about that. We recognize these as clear and present public health threats. As a result, we have laws about driving or using machinery while drunk. We have regulations that demand big fat warning labels on cigarettes, and we run public service announcements and anti-smoking campaigns to warn of the dangers.
We’re not doing anything like this for guns. We can’t even be bothered to do something simple like ban bump stocks. I have yet to see a single PSA pointing out the gun-suicide risk connection; it’s certainly not seen as a major concern the government should worry about. We can’t even pass laws that prevent people with serious mental disorders or a history of violent behavior from owning guns!
Meanwhile, the myth of a “good guy with a gun” probably won’t die until someone shoots up the NRA’s headquarters.