13 year old boy shot and killed by parents’ gun
Man Dies Just For Standing On Sidewalk
Gang-Related Shootings result in deaths
Ride your bike and get blown away
That didn’t take long. You really need more?
Maybe you do…Excellent nationwide gun-related deaths of children statistics.
Gun Deaths in Washington State
Gun Deaths in District of Columbia
Find the Gun Laws in your state
Glossary of terms useful in an intelligent discussion on Gun Control
Are Lower Statistics acceptable?
Pediatric Firearms Deaths are underreported in Miami/Dade
More food for thought.
The bottom line throughout all of these links is that the people who died were killed because someone pointed a gun at them and killed them, OR someone fired a gun and the bullet hit them, even though the victim was not the intended victim ( as though somehow, that makes it all better…:rolleyes: ).
Read the actual reports. Not Urban Myths. Not legends with no shred of truth. How many of the gun-caused deaths could have been achieved by wrapping a newspaper around a stone? Read through. Many of these people are FAR more than arms’ length away from their victims. A sword? From across the street? Really??? Unless Thor, God of Thunder is declaring war on the United States of America, I think your hammer theory is fairly thin as well.
So…all of these stories are pure myth and have no basis in reality? There is no gun control problem in the United States?
I don’t think anyone is arguing that these stories are pure myth and have no basis in reality''. Yes, people are killed using guns. Yes, sometimes these are innocent bystanders’’. The questions are:
- is controlling guns an effective response?
- does controlling guns cost too much?
Under 1), we can debate whether legislating guns out of existance will actually lead to there being no guns around (c.f. the war on drugs…)
We can debate whether people who kill other people would just shake hands and live happily ever after if there didn’t happen to be a gun available. (And I will grant that if said people did use shorter-range weapons, the innocent-bystander kills might decrease. But then again, how many innocent bystanders are killed by cars? Are those deaths acceptable losses? Collateral damage? Cause to ban cars?)
Under 2) we can discuss the exorbitant costs of tracking every single gun as in our register.
We can discuss the impacts that controlling or banning guns would have or legitimate hunters and target shooters. Heck, if you really want, you can argue that hunting and target shooting are not legitimate activities and should be banned, too, but I don’t think you’d get very far.
But as far as I can tell, no one is arguing that gun deaths don’t happen. You mention straw men. How 'bout that log in your own eye?
I’ll take some of that action, hotshot. How 'bout , just as an example close to hand, Toledo, Ohio? The 2001 population of Toledo proper (not counting the suburbs) was 313,619 change. In 2001, there were a grand fucking total of 18 murders, weapon of choice not specified, but you can probably do the math
Here’s more, all 2001 data (murder weapon not specified but you can again do the goddamned math even if they are all gun murders):
[ul]
[li]El Paso, TX - pop. = 563,662 - murders = 20[/li][li]Tuscon, AZ - pop. = 486 699 - murders = 42[/li][li]Omaha, NE - pop. = 390,007 - murders = 25[/li][li]Tampa, FL - pop. = 303,447 - murders = 34[/li][li]Seattle, WA - pop. = 563,374 - murders = 25[/li][li]Denver, CO - pop. = 554,636 - murders = 45[/li][li]Portland, OR - pop. = 529,121 - murders = 21[/li][li]Mesa, AZ - pop. = 396,375 - murders = 17[/li][li]San Di-fuckin’-e-go, CA = 1,223,400 - murders = 50[/li][/ul]
Source: http://www.areaconnect.com/
And my 2000 World Almanac shows only 67 U.S. cities with a population greater than 1/4 million people. You want more? Or is ten (15%) enough? Next time you feel an urge to make a statement this stupid and easily proved wrong, you should check the facts before opening your yap. This took me less than ten minutes to find.
It feels just fine, thanks.
viking? You put innocent bystanders in quotation marks.
Um, would you be so kind as to explain to those of us reading this thread why innocent bystanders is a phrase that doesn’t deserve to stand alone?
The quotation marks insinuate something. Why don’t you just come right out and say what you mean? By all means, fight some ignorance and tell us about innocent bystanders who are apparently not innocent, nor bystanders.
I can’t wait.
In response to your questions:
-
Yes, controlling guns is an effective response. Yes, it will take money out of the hands of funeral homes. I can live with that impact on a local economy.
-
Does it cost too much? That’s a G.D. question if ever I have heard one. Here is my quesion in response to that question. What is of greater value? The financial impact on gun-owners who will have to pay for the costs of gun registration and tracking with increased costs of weapons and ammo, or the value of a human life? Because really, if there was zero human component, would anybody care who owned guns at all?
I know I wouldn’t. Why would I care if people wish to hunt game to eat it, or become expert markspeople at target shooting, or skeet shooting? It’s a skill, like many other skills. Remove the violent aspects, and it’s a hobby.
You cannot remove the violent aspects. Guns were created to kill. It’s really kinda simple, underneath the fancy debating. Guns were not created to finesse long-range target shooting, or to simply be the combination of the awareness of gunpowder, the ability to create a spark by striking a flint against steel, and some very fine wood and metal working.
They’re made to kill other people with. Is there value in controlling the distribution of a killing machine? To me, of course there is.
Up there in this thread, mod29 suggested that I put a sign on my front lawn, proclaiming that my home is gun-free.
I’ll be glad to do that, the day I start seeing videotape on the evening news of gun advocates carrying signs proclaiming that they believe in gun ownership, walking around the grave while a funeral service is being held for someone murdered with a gun.
You want me to be proud of my stance? Fine. You go ahead and be proud of yours. I could actually DO it. Publicly.
Could you?
Because, if those here who are so righteously adamant about their rights to arm their families like guerrillas fighting a war feel so strongly that their position is right, and that nobody has a right to control their access to guns, then put your moral position out for all to see.
This one statement shows the depth of your delusion. Outlawing guns will not make them disappear. It won’t even make them disappear from the hands of otherwise law-abiding and peaceful citizens, let alone the criminals. Outlawing guns will not make them disappear. To think otherwise is irrational. Outlawing guns will not make them disappear. Repeat as necessary.
It’s idiotic statements like yours that turn rational debates into useless free-for-alls. And I’d like to note for the record, that once again, it’s a member of the anti-gun crowd that first showed signs of irrational anger in one of these threads. This is yet further evidence that it is they, not the pro-gun folks who cannot discuss this issue calmly and politely. Y’all keep this up and you’re gonna take that “-nut” label away from us.
-
I stand corrected. You are right, I should do the math myself next time. Don’t suppose YOU went and checked MY links to discover the gun deaths per state? Or, is a state just too darned big to really matter?
-
Who did you just quote?
-
Of course it’s the pro-gun people who can discuss this calmly and politely. The gun lobby has insured that the Legislation in the U.S.A. sits squarely on their side. Manners come more easily to those who win consistently.
OK, I’ll apologise for putting innocent bystanders in quotes. Truth be told when I saw my post come up, I wondered why I had done that, myself. Best post-facto explanation I can come up with is that accepting the term innocent bystanders implies that those not befitting that label deserved to die, but if that is the reason I typed quotes, it occurred somewhere between the brainstem and the fingers rather than consciously thought out… My apologies.
As to the actual arguments, do you have any evidence that ``Yes, controlling guns is an effective response. Yes, it will take money out of the hands of funeral homes. I can live with that impact on a local economy.’’, or do we just take that on faith? The funeral home bit I won’t even dignify with a response.
And yes, there is a value to human life. But the thing is, it’s not usually spend money on this, or people die', it's spend money on this way to cut deaths, or that way to cut deaths’. I’m just doubting that, in the big picture, spending money on gun control gives you the most deaths-prevented per buck. And I’m not saying that curtailing some liberties to save lives is never justified. It just seems that the onus of proof should be on the side of those wanting to curtail liberties, no?
If pro-gun people win consistently, how did we end up with some of the ridiculous gun laws we have now?
Amarone
I once read that you really need 3 guns.
A shotgun for when the bad guy is trying to break into your home.
A handgun for when he is in the home.
A high powered rifle for when the son of a bitch runs away.
Sorry I can’t remember who advised it.
“controling” or outlawing of any inanimate object makes no sense.
Laws should be passed to prohibit bad or dangerous behavior, and to outlaw people hurting other people regardless of “how” they do it.
The fact that guns, knives, hammers, cars, etc have been used as tools to kill people is not the fault of the object, it is the fault of the bad person. Outlawing of guns, knives, hammers, objects etc, is nonsensical.
It is interesting that in most of the United States for over a hundred years, no physical object was outlawed for most of its citizens, even for ex-felons. In the 1800’s, any United States citizen could own any “physical object” in the world if he had the money to pay for it.
The idea of outlawing “objects”, is recent, beginning with drugs, then guns, bombs, etc. and has not worked in stopping bad behavior nor in stopping crime.
Ummmm, you. :rolleyes: Along with not being bothered to check your facts, you can’t be bothered to remember what you typed? Makes the whole process kinda pointless doesn’t it?
No, I didn’t. I’m not interested and I believe I already have a pretty good idea of the gun deaths per state. And nationally. After all, I was very easily able to disprove your assertion about murders at the municipal level; it appears I’m a bit more informed about the issue than you.
You issued a challenge in a rather bilious manner. I simply took up that challenge and proved you wrong. If you wanna be obnoxious, confrontational, and attempt to villify your opponents, then don’t be surprised if they show little interest in continuing a discussion with you. Frankly, I have no interest in your gun deaths per state, except to say that with the exception of Florida and perhaps Illinios (outside of Chicago and a couple other cities), the states you listed are generally considered to have more restrictive gun control laws. It seems to me that if one wants to make a case that more gun control laws are needed, they’d attempt to show that states with more restrictive laws have less crime and lower gun murder rates than states with less restrictive laws. You’re just showing us that states with higher murder rates have more restrictive gun laws. Not a good way to make your point. In fact, the bold might even call it counter-productive.
Anyway, your state statistics are not a germane part of this argument. If you do wanna argue about things like “people who died were killed because someone pointed a gun at them and killed them,” then we can also argue about things like people who thwarted armed attacks on themselves and others by pointing a gun at the attacker and killing him. There are two side to that particular coin. But as I said, it’s not part of a debate on gun control laws.
And some of those people actually pointed that gun at themselves - in fact, more than half of them. Suicide also is not properly a part of a debate on gun control laws. Many studies have shown that the availability of guns has no statistically significant effect on suicide rates in the U.S. and other countries. There is no study of which I’m aware that links a greater availability of guns to an increased incidence of suicide.
So you’re a sore loser? Then you may color me unsurprised by your petulant display.
Of course you’re not interested. Those statistics would paint a more sober picture of gun-related deaths, and that’s exactly what you are trying to whitewash over. I understand perfectly, trust me. Why read stats that might prove you wrong? Who would want to do that? Why, that’s no way to win a debate !
Must be nice to be so well-informed by one narrow little band of data that you put together ( albeit very accurately ) that you have no need to read a cite provided in a post, that IS in fact entirely germaine to the discussion at hand.
You threw out suicide. Interesting. So, how many people would be able to commit suicide if all guns in the United States were kept out of all hands, except for law enforcement?
Gee. All of em? I’m not trying to bait anyone who has lost a loved one who was in law enforcement and used their gun on themselves, so before some unfortunate family member comes completely unglued and starts firing hollow-point rounds, let us all just say that we know cops commit suicide with their own weapons. I was addressing non-law enforcement suicides, ok???
If you feel it has nothing to do with gun control laws, then why did you mention suicide at all?
The statistical issues are directly tied to gun control debates. I mean, look at it. If there were no deaths due to guns in this country, then why the heck would anybody push for ANY kind of gun control at all? Therefore, the numbers of deaths, state by state, add up to a nationwide total that is sobering. At least I’m sobered by it.
I have no problem saying that I wish that there were zero guns available to private citizens in the United States. This isn’t G.Q., one does not issue ultimate answers. The stats, the suicides, it is all related. It all underscores the incredible loss of life per year that is directly the result of people killing other people with handguns.
Zero tolerance gun control would have stopped that. I will reluctantly agree that if someone were to pass sweeping legislation tomorrow that fit into my ideal of what would save a lot of lives, there would be hundreds of thousands of guns out there despite said legislation.
This is a thread on gun control. Every state in the USA falls woefully short, IMHO.
What on earth do you mean by “zero tolerance gun control?”
Stopped what?
And when would you have enacted your “zero tolerance?” In about 1250 when guns first appeared? In 1044 at the invention of gunpowder? Or, since violence is violence, perhaps earlier, say 2,600,000 BC in the Olduvai Gorge where Homo habilis is first thought to have made tools, picked up one of his carved rocks and caved in the head of his neighbor? Wishing weapons away ain’t gonna work.
Because you’re using suicide to inflate the number of gun deaths. Suicides are shown to take place at statistically identical rates whether firearms are readily available or not. You brought up suicides, not me. I’m merely refuting your claims. I’m never the first to introduce suicide to a gun control argument because I think it’s irrelevant. If you wanna legitimize your claim that the availabilty of guns causes a corresponding increase in the suicide rate, find something to substantiate it. You know how this works.
Quick! Without performing a search, only from your memory, how many gun murders were there last year in the United States? Is the national trend, despite there being more guns and gun owners, up, or down?
I dunno. Why do people continue to push for ever more strong gun control laws when the existing ones can be shown to not work? Actually, I do have an answer. They’re deluded and think a simple solution to a difficult problem exists. They comfort themselves with the rationalization that they’re more compassionate, more empathetic, and that they “Care” so much more than everyone else. They see the world as a simple little place that’s pretty good, but could be ever so much better if only everyone felt as they did. And they’re willing to stop at nothing, including illogically demonizing an inanimate object, and tragically criminalizing millions of lawful owners of those objects, in their misguided attempt to remake society according to their own rosy little woldview. That is why people push for gun control.
Anyway, why do my guns scare you so?
Ok a few more questions (I promise these are absolutely the last ones)
If you don’t think the ready availability of firearms is reponsible for the massive number of gun deaths in the US compared to other countries, then what do you attribute them to ?
Imagine that you did not have to worry about issues of cost (or even civil unrest) resulting from your actions, what firearm control legislation would you like to see in place ?
Do you think cost should be an issue for something that would have such a large social impact (ignoring the question of whether that impact would be good or bad) as say a national fire arm register ? I mean presumably even a billion dollars is fairly small potatoes for an economy the size of the US’s
Does anybody have any feedback on this thread ? Do you think the 24hr ban on debate was a good idea or do you think that the thread would have unfolded the same way regardless. Does anyone have any topics in mind that they think would benefit from this approach ?
-
Partly, I’ll agree that the ready availability of firearms is responsible for the number of gun deaths. But I think that gun deaths is the wrong category to worry so much about. The high death rate is due to people wanting to kill each other, and maybe that’s what we should worry about.
-
Safety training and licensing for gun owners. No legislation on guns themselves. For hunters, adding a minimum marksmanship standard to current hunter-licensing requirements of gun safety, outdoor survival (theory), animal identification (theory, again).
-
Yes. Resources are always limited, and spending on one thing will be not spent on another thing.
No.
But then again, it has absolutely no bearing on my inalienable right to keep and bear arms. The murder rate could permanently increase 1000X and (to the horror of some people) I would still inalienable right to keep and bear arms…
Amarone The level of crime is not at issue. That the crime is there and needs defending against is the issue.
Your refutation of my point about Hamilton is entirely specious: the specific case is not defending yourself but someone else.
Tell me, have you been burgled?
I think I agree with you.
I had a close family member murdered a couple of years ago, and it never occured to me to try to get my congressmen to outlaw the murder weapon. I still have no ill feelings toward the murder weapon that was used, and I am not starting or joining any organization to try to get these weapons outlawed or licenced, or controlled.
My anger is against the person who committed the murder, not the physical object he used.
I dont want more and more physical objects licensed and outlawed, I want people to stop murdering others, regardless of how they do it.
by the way, my relative was murdered with a frying pan. He was hit repeatedly on the head with an iron skillet.\
I have absolutely no inclination at all to join any organization like:
“Frying Pan Control”(similar to the organization: Handgun Control), or anyting like that.
Frying pans owned and used by the majority of our citizens are no threat to the rest of us, most of us are quite responsible in using frying pans and I really dont think we need federal legislation controlling frying pans, nor a minimum age to buy one, nor an instant background check on people who want to buy frying pans, nor should there be limits as to the size or number of how many frying pans any particular individual might want to buy.
Murder is what we should outlaw. Catching murderers is what our police should be doing, not policing owners or purchasers of frying pans.
Quote Enigmatic
If you don’t think the ready availability of firearms is reponsible for the massive number of gun deaths in the US compared to other countries, then what do you attribute them to ?
Why limit your question to “Gun deaths”
An Anti trick to keep the horrible “Gun” in the Publics conciousness?
The responsibility for any kind of violent death does not belong to the weapon. It lies squarely on the shoulders of the person comitting the deed.