Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wrong. As tragic as the murder of one child is, you do not punish 100 million law abiding gun owners for the actions of a few psychopathic retards.
and lets not forget that I have provided statistical evidence that nearly 1 million law abiding citizens use guns every single year to thwart criminal activity.
Lets also remember that I have provided statistical evidence that 123,000 Americans use guns every year to "stop someone from being seriously harmed or killed" by criminals every single year.
So for the Gunhaters to be right, banning Assault rifles would need to AT THE VERY LEAST save 123,001 lives to save 1 life... but we know that ALL RIFLES kill only 323 per year.... Assault Rifles are a subset of ALL RIFLES therefore a subset of 323...
This is why I don't really go for the all out "ban" of weapons, etc. I'm more along the lines of let people have weapons. ..but register/track effectively.
1)De-neuter and restore the ATF
2)all weapons purchases/transfers must be recorded
3)failure to record a purchase/transfer can get you in jail (like 10 year minimum)
4) If your weapon is used in a crime, and you didn't record it as lost/stolen/etc - your an accomplice. . including the gun shops.
5) minimum, heavy, for a unregistered weapon. . .especially pistols
6) activated gun-powder. i.e. traceable cartridges that we can trace from residue to place bought, and every ammo purchase must be recorded.
I.e. I don't think that banning a specific weapon will help. The problem is having a weapon. Make the transfer of a weapon so risky that even for a 1,000 or 10,000 a person isn't willing to sell their weapon to a criminal.
I can't see anything else really having an impact
Though I would note, I think the Assault Weapons allowed in the US are a bigger issue for Mexico than us.
Side note: 2012 ~40 kids were shot at school, out of 40 million. So arming teachers is a really stupid way to prevent a insignificant cause of death. lack of seat belts in buses kills more, lack of Flu vaccination kill more.
In 2011 the FBI recorded 12,664 murders. These have been classified by weapon used.
8,583 murders were committed using firearms of all types.
Of those 6,220 were handguns.
Shotguns accounted for 356
Rifles accounted for just 323 killings. This would include Assault Weapons like the ones Mr. Obama and others are lamenting as well as deer rifles and small caliber .22 rifles and bolt action, single shot etc…
More than 12,000 people were killed in some way in 2011. Mr. Obama and liberals everywhere want to curtail the use of one form of weapon that accounts for some subset of 323 out of 12,664.
Incidentally 1,694 people were murdered where the killer used a knife or some other cutting instrument.
728 killers used their hands and feet
More people were killed with hammers than with assault weapons.
Thank you for allowing me to bring some statistical context to the debate. Carry on.
This is why I don't really go for the all out "ban" of weapons, etc. I'm more along the lines of let people have weapons. ..but register/track effectively.
1)De-neuter and restore the ATF
2)all weapons purchases/transfers must be recorded
3)failure to record a purchase/transfer can get you in jail (like 10 year minimum)
4) If your weapon is used in a crime, and you didn't record it as lost/stolen/etc - your an accomplice. . including the gun shops.
5) minimum, heavy, for a unregistered weapon. . .especially pistols
6) activated gun-powder. i.e. traceable cartridges that we can trace from residue to place bought, and every ammo purchase must be recorded.
I.e. I don't think that banning a specific weapon will help. The problem is having a weapon. Make the transfer of a weapon so risky that even for a 1,000 or 10,000 a person isn't willing to sell their weapon to a criminal.
I can't see anything else really having an impact
Though I would note, I think the Assault Weapons allowed in the US are a bigger issue for Mexico than us.
instead of making an entire post telling you why I disagree with you, I will just say I disagree with you.
This is why I don't really go for the all out "ban" of weapons, etc. I'm more along the lines of let people have weapons. ..but register/track effectively.
1)De-neuter and restore the ATF
2)all weapons purchases/transfers must be recorded
3)failure to record a purchase/transfer can get you in jail (like 10 year minimum)
4) If your weapon is used in a crime, and you didn't record it as lost/stolen/etc - your an accomplice. . including the gun shops.
5) minimum, heavy, for a unregistered weapon. . .especially pistols
6) activated gun-powder. i.e. traceable cartridges that we can trace from residue to place bought, and every ammo purchase must be recorded.
I.e. I don't think that banning a specific weapon will help. The problem is having a weapon. Make the transfer of a weapon so risky that even for a 1,000 or 10,000 a person isn't willing to sell their weapon to a criminal.
I can't see anything else really having an impact
Though I would note, I think the Assault Weapons allowed in the US are a bigger issue for Mexico than us.
Side note: 2012 ~40 kids were shot at school, out of 40 million. So arming teachers is a really stupid way to prevent a insignificant cause of death. lack of seat belts in buses kills more, lack of Flu vaccination kill more.
I seriously do not agree with your idea of gun registration. leave my guns and my ammo alone
[update point 0]: Any study on firearm prevention of crime (two normally cited) are from the 90s. From what I'm seeing, they are pretty flawed. . especially if you account for the 40% or so reduction in violent crime from that period.
1) any estimate at "prevented" crimes is pretty tough, since its mostly anecdotal and up to personal judgement.
- i.e. showing a gun may or may not of prevented a crime. There is no way to tell for sure. it is common to claim "I prevented a crime by thugs, by showing gun". Yet. . .who knows? maybe the "thugs" were just lost african american kids needing help and now you scared them to death.
2) Violent Crimes are just not that likely. Homicide is what ? 24 per 100,000 in Washington DC. Most are 4-5 per 100,000. There are so many things that are more likely to cause you an issue in your life than the chance of being shot. . .or attacked. Investing in gun, training, and keeping the gun safe. . .
3) Then you have to negate out the impact of having a gun. Like having a swimming pool, trampoline, or any other item (car) a gun impacts the safety of your family. Guns in the household increase suicide rates, domestic violence homicides, accident by guns
4) and then if you take Every protection to protect from item "3" then your chance of getting a gun in a home invasion or something else unlikely (alien attack) are pretty unlikely.
$400 plus training and safety costs seems pretty high price to pay to prevent something less likely than a lot of other stuff you could buy to protect your family. Flu Shots, helmets, a car versus a motorcycle.
Last edited by ChrisFromChicago; 01-17-2013 at 09:10 AM..
[update point 0]: Any study on firearm prevention of crime (two normally cited) are from the 90s. From what I'm seeing, they are pretty flawed. . especially if you account for the 40% or so reduction in violent crime from that period.
1) any estimate at "prevented" crimes is pretty tough, since its mostly anecdotal and up to personal judgement.
- i.e. showing a gun may or may not of prevented a crime. There is no way to tell for sure. it is common to claim "I prevented a crime by thugs, by showing gun". Yet. . .who knows? maybe the "thugs" were just lost african american kids needing help and now you scared them to death.
2) Violent Crimes are just not that likely. Homicide is what ? 24 per 100,000 in Washington DC. Most are 4-5 per 100,000. There are so many things that are more likely to cause you an issue in your life than the chance of being shot. . .or attacked. Investing in gun, training, and keeping the gun safe. . .
3) Then you have to negate out the impact of having a gun. Like having a swimming pool, trampoline, or any other item (car) a gun impacts the safety of your family. Guns in the household increase suicide rates, domestic violence homicides, accident by guns
4) and then if you take Every protection to protect from item "3" then your chance of getting a gun in a home invasion or something else unlikely (alien attack) are pretty unlikely.
$400 plus training and safety costs seems pretty high price to pay to prevent something less likely than a lot of other stuff you could buy to protect your family. Flu Shots, helmets, a car versus a motorcycle.
1) any estimate at "prevented" crimes is pretty tough, since its mostly anecdotal and up to personal judgement.
- i.e. showing a gun may or may not of prevented a crime. There is no way to tell for sure. it is common to claim "I prevented a crime by thugs, by showing gun". Yet. . .who knows? maybe the "thugs" were just lost african american kids needing help and now you scared them to death.
2) Violent Crimes are just not that likely. Homicide is what ? 24 per 100,000 in Washington DC. Most are 4-5 per 100,000. There are so many things that are more likely to cause you an issue in your life than the chance of being shot. . .or attacked. Investing in gun, training, and keeping the gun safe. . .
3) Then you have to negate out the impact of having a gun. Like having a swimming pool, trampoline, or any other item (car) a gun impacts the safety of your family. Guns in the household increase suicide rates, domestic violence homicides, accident by guns
4) and then if you take Every protection to protect from item "3" then your chance of getting a gun in a home invasion or something else unlikely (alien attack) are pretty unlikely.
$400 plus training and safety costs seems pretty high price to pay to prevent something less likely than a lot of other stuff you could buy to protect your family. Flu Shots, helmets, a car versus a motorcycle.
geez. you say lots of facts that are just not true.
lets start with suicide rates. NO guns have very little if any impact on suicide rates.
As for your point one, I have provided links to scientific papers that back up the numbers I have cited here. you can google and find more if you need them.
and "guns increase accident by guns? really? and gravel increases the rates of falling by gravel. duh!
but speaking of accidents, you will find in this thread evidence that shows a person is VASTLY more likely to die accidentally from ingesting poison than from a gun. the numbers are like 10,000 to less than 400 if memory serves.
I do agree that flushots and wearing helmets and locking up bleach are vastly more helpful than having our federal government ranting and raving about taking away guns.... or having internetbuddies calling for insane ideas like tracking gunpowder and regestering my guns so the government knows what I have.
no thank you.
Now lets save some lives and BAN BLEACH and get drunk drivers off the roads!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
