Yeah, I did this comparison a long time ago to address statements like the one philly made. Saying that gun ownership in a state is highly correlated with gun deaths is like saying that car ownership in a state is highly correlated with car deaths.
It probably works but its very cumbersome.
A better solution IMO would be simply to have licensing and registration for handguns. Let the “defense against tyranny” types fight the army with rifles and shotguns.
Meh, almost all of those are AR-15 receivers. BTW, I don’t think we should let people mill their own receivers but if its just rifle receivers, then… meh.
Suicide attempts by guns are more lethal than suicide attempts by wristcutting but considering the absolutely average suicide rate in the USA versus other countries, I’m nto sure that the suicide rates in other countries are being suppressed by the lack of guns.
As for the use of guns in murder, I would have thought that that would be captured by relative murder rates.
Here the US murder rate is higher than other developed countries so its hard to tell. it certainly isn’t conclusive enough to make the sort of categorical statements that some gun grabbers make.
The title is misleading because the linkisn’t between guns and homicides. The link is between guns and gun homcides. I could have told you that gun homicides are going to be more common in places where ther are more guns. But show me that more guns = more homicides generally? Its hard to draw that conclusion by comaring states or even countries.
When you look at total gun deaths, the trend line is even clearer;
Despite apparently having made a mistake or two in quotation in your last post, you were on the right track here. The dangers of gun ownership should be taken as seriously as are those of car ownership. Permit testing, which does exist in most states, and is accepted by many (most?) second amendment supporters, should get more emphasis. One way we will know it is real is if carry permit testing firms that advertise everyone passing are put out of business, and you start getting reasonable pass rates. The reason isn’t because we want people to fail. It’s that we need to show our seriousness about people mastering the rules before giving them a licence that can so easily turn to disaster. Here’s one example of what that looks like:
The government should spend less money locking people up for gun law violations, and more researching subtle and/or innovative gun features that make them less likely to be used by minors, or for illegitimate purposes such as when the gun is grabbed away from the owner. Given US political realities, this is a more likely kind of gun grabbing to occur than the type of gun grabbing gun enthusiasts get the heebie jeebies over.
When safer cars can be made, they are, but the government does not confiscate the old ones. That’s also a good model for guns.
Can you imagine how many lives have been saved because car enthusiasts didn’t boycott car dealers when seat belts first came out, the way the gun culturists are boycotting any gun dealers who sells a smart gun? But I do remember when people insisted it was better to be thrown from the car than to be locked in by a belt. It took a decade or two to get past that. Just because smart guns aren’t accepted instantly is no reason to give up on the cause.
P.S. As to whether car ownership rates are greatly correlated with car death, it sounds plausible. Why don’t you do the research? Here is a link to start with: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs03/htm/mv1.htm
I’m all for people switching from cars to transit, especially rail and/or walking to work. While I’d first emphasize the environmental advantages, avoiding personalized transport is also a lot safer. Note to pro-gun posters: This does not make me a car grabber
No thanks. Anytime you introduce the government between the individual and firearms, the gun control advocates through the force of government will seek to erect barriers to the process.
Well, I happen to support licensing and registration for handguns but I know a lot of fellow gun nuts that don’t. Most of the ones that object to licensign and registration, object to it because they don’t think it will end there. The population of gun control advocates that want to stop at licensing and registration is small (or at least taht is the perception among the gun nuts I know). The perception is that gun grabbers are trying to slowly get to a total gun ban (or something very close to it).
I also don’t think that the failure rate for a gun licensing exam needs to be anywhere near 50%. The rules for operating a gun safely is a fairly short and simple list. A carry license might result in a higher failure rate as you ask legal questions like “can you bring a gun into a bar in Virginia” (yes), “how many drinks can you have in that bar” (zero).
Well, its not for a lack of trying on the part of the gun grabbers.
Cars are not a perfect analogy for guns.
Seat belts were not universal until the law required it, air bags were not universal util the law required it.
What gun safety feature would you make universal by law?
Not even close to being analogous.
Seat belts do not affect the reliability of a car.
Seat belts do not quadruple the cost of a car.
Seat belts are not restricted to 4 cylinder compact cars with no trunk space.
Nobody is passing seat belt laws in an effort to get fewer people to buy cars.
A closer analogy would be if a state passed a law saying that once a smart car (one that drives itself) is first sold to the public, then the only cars that can be sold in that state are smart cars. Sure the technology isn’t perfect and you can only get it on a Ford Festiva and it triples the cost of the car but we think it would be safer if everyone drove smart cars.
noone’s giving up on smart guns, we are just objecting to banning all other guns.
I don’t think thats a safety feature. Is the evidence that guns reduce safety anywhere near as conclusive as the evidence that smoking is hazardous to your health?
This is something that gun grabbers keep repeating and never prove.
