About 42% of all homicide offenders have a history of prior conviction for a felony. About 70% percent have a history of any arrests, but as you know, being arrested is not the same as breaking any laws or being convicted.
On the other hand, if you want to assert that any history of arrest is grounds for loss of gun rights, you won’t get obiection from me.
Is that broken down by means of murder? I wonder if guns skew from other causes.
Yes we have done cars quite frequently and in some contexts the analogy doesn’t make sense and in others it does.
YOUR observation was that we shouldn’t have guns because there are a lot of idiots out there that might fuck up and kill someone. How does that observation not apply to idiots with cars. Somehow, in your mind guns are all downside and zero upside so there is no cost benefit analysis that needs to be undertaken. That’s fine but it makes you look like an ideologue who won’t let anything change his mind.
The same folks who haven’t heard yours. And not that my rantings are influencing anyone but overall, more people seem to be moving more in my direction than yours.
And not to pick nits but you are counting about 20,000 suicides and attempted suicides in that figure.
So, lets include the 70,000 or so non-fatal shootings in the cost benefit analysis, fine by me.
If they tried to pass laws outlawing cars, I would probably whine quite a bit.
These people object to the private ownership of guns. They aren’t saying, lets just have some regulations of guns, we already have regulation of guns. Guns are one of the most heavily regulated items in this country. It is certainly the most heavily regulated thing that is protected by the constitution.
To anyone who wants to assert that guns and cars are equally dangerous, I’ll make you a proposition. I’ll go and stand next to a busy street while 100s or 1000s of strangers drive right past me. (In fact, I just did this. I walked from an MLB game to a hotel a mile away.) In turn, you go and stand next to a target while hundreds of strangers shoot at it. Deal?
If not, why not?
There’s a large number of drivers who wouldn’t even see you there.
I doubt there are many gun owners who would shoot at a target with someone standing next to it.
What I would not want to do is be in a situation that creates a possibility of carelessness.
Such as target shooting combined with drinking.
I would rather handle a gun myself if possible rather than a stranger hand it to me for a looksee.
Gunshop employee I would watch if they’ve been properly trained ( the vast majority are, it’s the sporting good shops and dept. stores clerks I would be worried about).
Do you assert that all “justifiable homicides” are “beneficial”? The killing of 100 Americans per month by LEO are almost all ruled "“justifiable homicides.” Are they all beneficial? Was the killing of Tamir Rice beneficial?
[/QUOTE]
I still hope for an answer from Damuri Ajashi, or any of the [del]gun nuts[/del] super-patriotic defenders of God’s Second [del]Comma[/del]Amendment.
The mentality that a “good clean kill” is always a benefit seems too sick to be human, but it is where much of the pro-gun pro-cop commentary points. Was Damuri Ajashi’s claim just a mental lapse, or does it give a true glimpse into his inner thoughts?
No, there is no context in which the analogy makes sense. Just drop it, it is not helping you.
Again, we are not hearing much in the way of gun banners in this thread. Most of us want guns taken away from assholes and idiots, to be managed and handled with due care. Not outright banned.
(Though, I have to admit, excluding assholes and idiots does come rather close to an actual total ban.)
“But cars!” is hardwired into their brains. He could.no sooner drop it than a dog could stop licking its balls.
The sliver of people in the subset of “people who want guns” and “people who are not assholes or idiots” does seem to be extremely small.
They don’t make the news.
What do you mean? Are you suggesting that I was struck by a car and didn’t realize it?
And yet people routinely drive right next to pedestrians. What do you make of that?
Nm
No, I mean you would be hit because drivers wouldn’t even see you.
Pedestrian deaths4,432 (2011)
35,369 vehicle accident deaths-505 accidental gun deaths (2013)
Firearm homicides 11,208 (2011)
So, you appear to be saying that the raw number of fatalities indicates that guns are safer than cars. Again, you stand by a target and I’ll stand by a busy roadway. Come on! I’ll do it right now!
For completeness. pg 22 PDF (2013)
Total deaths by suicide-42,149
This chart shows accidental deaths have dropped.
Firearm use-21,175
For completeness, please state what you conclude from those numbers.
You’ll get hit far sooner. Far more drivers will pass dangerously closer to you than shooters will fire at a target with someone standing next to it.
Notice how many pedestrians died compared to careless gun handling(which is different from deliberately playing William Tell).
Just added that because I saw a difference between the number of gun homicides and total gun deaths.
No, I’m asking you to state what you conclude about guns and cars based on these numbers. Conclude means to make an integrative summary or generalizing statement after considering a set of data or some kind of information.
Be forewarned, I suspect I know what your conclusion is, and I am going to make fun of you with little sympathy after you make it.
By the way, I just walked along by a whole bunch of cars. Not one single one hit me. I even traversed a parking lot with cars coming and going in all directions and not one hit me.
