Guns

[LeMansAid]

Each individual case would need to be looked at. Just saying violent crime leaves a whole lot of room for what if, hyperbolic scenarios. I won't give you that rope.

Just wondering if there's really any point in taking guns away from anyone at all, if those with the want to kill will find a way anyway. After all......

cricket bats, baseball bats, golf clubs or hockey sticks........ screwdrivers, wheelbraces and hammers.......

...... are all very much usable as deadly weapons.

 

[justin credible]

I can sum it up with a sentence, Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. Sorry, but that is a fundamental truth. Mass murders happen in a lot of gun-free zones like schools, political rallies with a candidate, sporting events and lots of places where they sell alcohol.

Generally speaking, most gun control laws don't work because it is not the criminals that the law targets, it is law abiding citizens. Our government is currently taking a lot of flack with everyone because there is communication between the VA (Veteran's Affairs) and the DOJ by disqualifying a lot of veterans, some that fought in the recent wars in Afhganistan and Iraq, from owning a gun. Think about that for a second. Our Department of Justice is more concerned about veterans owning guns than actually pursuing criminals who doven't give a 🤬 about our laws.

Your right criminals give more than guns a bad name. Maybe as I don't know of any shooting clubs where I live and the only thing I see guns used for is crime I should change my opinion to "if guns are allowed to be owned then stricter control so they cannot be stolen by the usual thick criminal should be applied"
Your correct that the correct aim for control should be targeted at the criminals (no puns intended).
It just seems in the states and here in the uk it is far to easy to get your hands on a gun,
Do you start at how society views guns and start educating kids from an early age on the safety of guns?
It is a minefield on how educating a criminal on not picking up a gun is going to lead to a gun crime free country.
Are the laws tough enough? A can of worms indeed.

 

[LeMansAid]

It just seems in the states and here in the uk it is far to easy to get your hands on a gun

Along with plenty of other weapons.

While we're here, and on that topic - my post wasn't worthy of a response @FoolKiller?

 

[ClydeYellow]

And even the most responsible gun owner I ask WHY do you need a gun?

Because it's plenty of fun to shoot one?

I know many people who own guns for sporting purposes, and I'd very much like to do so myself. They know fully how dangerous guns are, as I do, and keep them disassembled or, at the very least, unloaded and locked away at all times.

I can sum it up with a sentence, Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.

Heh, yes and no. I'd rather say that only a good guy with a gun and a lot of training can stop a bad guy with a gun without increasing the risk of receiving harm, or causing others to receive harm.

Say I was carring a concealed weapon in a crowded area in a situation involving an armed person threatening me and the other people present (like say, a bank robbery at peak hour). With the kind of groupings I get when firing down range in a calm, controlled environment, would I trust myself to shoot precisely and effectively the shooter without instead hitting, possibly killing someone else and then risk being killed by retaliatory fire? Hell no I wouldn't.

I also know I am an average, if a bit green shooter. I've seen people with years of experience shoot worse than me at the range. So, I know in an average situation the average shooter would achieve as much as I would, if not less.

There's a reason members of SWAT teams are carefully selected and undergo thousands of hours of training, y'know.

 

[FoolKiller]

While we're here, and on that topic - my post wasn't worthy of a response @FoolKiller?

I had clearly stated that the weapon they used, not specifically guns, should have limited access. The gun scenario requires a case by case basis, as should any form of punitive action.

You want a blanket statement from me. You won't get it.

 

[LeMansAid]

I had clearly stated that the weapon they used, not specifically guns, should have limited access. The gun scenario requires a case by case basis, as should any form of punitive action.

You want a blanket statement from me. You won't get it.

I'm not sure if I agree with denying access to weapons disproportionately (bat vs knife vs car vs gun vs drone), but I know why I would, if I did. I was wondering if you agree/disagree with it, and why.

It seems for gun freedom, there's a convenient truth in one direction, with that same truth an inconvenient one in the opposite direction. The exchanges on page 114 showed that even those that I believe are very much in favour of gun freedom have a tendency to view guns unequivalently in regards to criminals, and other weapons. A certain amount of it was down to lack of clarity in law vs principle, but it seems there's also a genuine disconnect in the principles.

Perhaps you think I'm being purely adversarial. I'm not.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm not sure if I agree with denying access to weapons disproportionately (bat vs knife vs car vs gun vs drone), but I know why I would, if I did. I was wondering if you agree/disagree with it, and why.

It seems for gun freedom, there's a convenient truth in one direction, with that same truth an inconvenient one in the opposite direction. The exchanges on page 114 showed that even those that I believe are very much in favour of gun freedom have a tendency to view guns unequivalently in regards to criminals, and other weapons. A certain amount of it was down to lack of clarity in law vs principle, but it seems there's also a genuine disconnect in the principles.

Perhaps you think I'm being purely adversarial. I'm not.

The issue in the US is that our prison systems have become such a mess that recidivism is much higher than the public is comfortable with. Due to this the government is willing to prevent those who were previously convicted from access to anything that is deemed a weapon by law.

If you took the time to read the laws, the restrictions are not just on guns. It varies from state to state on how they define weapons.

My personal stance is that those rules should be adjusted to have an expiration time frame on the restriction and that other non-traditional weapons bans are based on if the person has shown a willingness to use them.

But as I said, the restriction should be within reason of enforceability and based on each individual case.

In a crime of passion situation there is no need to restrict many, if any, weapons. In a premeditated murder there needs to be a much broader restriction.

You are attempting to make a blanket assumption as to what argument I might find inconvenient, but I do not have a blanket idea. I am trying to prevent you from translating everything I say into that kind of argument. You have a history of it and until now I chose to not engage in what I predicted you would do. The fact that we are now exactly where I predicted we would be says a lot.

Let me reiterate it: My view (as in I cannot speak for the majority of the back and forth you had on page 114, which was not with me, assuming our settings are the exact same and the page numbers line up) is that the restrictions should be based on a case by case basis. There are too many variables between being motivated to commit the crime and the offender getting out of jail to make any one statement on what should or should not be done. There is nothing inconvenient in my view as I never limited my comments to guns nor did I make any definite, blanket, one-size fits all statement on what I think should be done.

If that is your argument, take it up with the others that you had to quote to explain what you are questioning. The fact you are questioning me, based on a quote from someone else seems...illogical.

 

[LeMansAid]

I'm questioning you out of genuine interest in what may affect my views. I see you and Danoff as particularly learned on this type of stuff, and value the logic behind your stances. It's a framework thing, and I'm wondering what framework I would most trust. I can't control whether or not you think I'm merely looking for a loophole or a misstep to exploit though.

In examining and adjusting my own thinking, I always try to look at what the referred effects are, and should be - "If x, then y". Indeed, why oh why.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm questioning you out of genuine interest in what may affect my views. I see you and Danoff as particularly learned on this type of stuff, and value the logic behind your stances. It's a framework thing, and I'm wondering what framework I would most trust. I can't control whether or not you think I'm merely looking for a loophole or a misstep to exploit though.

But there is no simple framework for these things. Our court systems act like there are, and use government-created terms to base them off of, but that is one of the failings of the justice system. It leads to ridiculous minimum sentencing that sounds good in one case but is overkill in another.

The same goes for the restrictions on felons. They are minimums set by statute. They do not take each individual case into consideration.

Ultimately, I have no answer for you because I would need details of each specific crime that are likely to never be accurately made publicly available. There would also likely need to be some sort of psych evaluation upon exiting prison that gives insight into the felon's mindset after serving their sentence. There is no one answer and thus I can't give you one.

As for its inconvenience compared to other arguments, I'm not the guy to ask.

 

[LeMansAid]

But there is no simple framework for these things.

I'm looking at a framework that says that all potentially deadly tools are treated equally, until such time as a specific tool has been used in the infringement of another's rights.

Denying access to guns for a convicted felon who's never used a gun in a crime, goes against the principle of that framework. Anyone who agrees with equivalency on one side (non-felon), and not on the other (felon), is a hypocrite as far as I can see.

I know that you've explained that you endorse forbidding access to tools that have been used in crimes, but you seem to be shying away from addressing the issue of tools that may become forbidden in situations where they have not been used in any crimes.

 

[Exorcet]

I'm looking at a framework that says that all potentially deadly tools are treated equally

I wouldn't use this as the reasoning to defend gun rights. Weapon discrimination in general is fine. What isn't, is telling people what is safe and what isn't. That's subjective and that's why there shouldn't be a national gun ban, while someone is within their rights to ban guns on their property while allowing truck loads of explosives.

Denying access to guns for a convicted felon who's never used a gun in a crime, goes against the principle of that framework. Anyone who agrees with equivalency on one side (non-felon), and not on the other (felon), is a hypocrite as far as I can see.

Selecting a punishment for a crime isn't necessarily easy. There are two reason for a punishment, one is reparation and one is deterrent (well there could be a third, like revenge, but I think ideally that should be left out). Reparation is not always possible (murder, permanent disability) and in those cases sentencing tends to be focused on deterring the crime (or any crime) from being repeated. How far do you go in doing this? It can go as far as stripping someone of all rights (death) or just short of that (life imprisonment). It can also be less severe, maybe just a revocation of gun rights.

That doesn't address why gun rights would be singled out for revocation though. That would be case specific. I don't really see a reason to revoke guns right for a hit and run where the driver has no prior record. It would seem like a situation where panic took over, rather than a situation where a person is irresponsible with a dangerous tool.

 

[LeMansAid]

Selecting a punishment for a crime isn't necessarily easy. There are two reason for a punishment, one is reparation and one is deterrent (well there could be a third, like revenge, but I think ideally that should be left out). Reparation is not always possible (murder, permanent disability) and in those cases sentencing tends to be focused on deterring the crime (or any crime) from being repeated. How far do you go in doing this? It can go as far as stripping someone of all rights (death) or just short of that (life imprisonment). It can also be less severe, maybe just a revocation of gun rights.

That doesn't address why gun rights would be singled out for revocation though. That would be case specific. I don't really see a reason to revoke guns right for a hit and run where the driver has no prior record. It would seem like a situation where panic took over, rather than a situation where a person is irresponsible with a dangerous tool.

Death? Of course. Life in prison? Certainly. Revoking gun rights? Well, that does nothing as a punishment for someone that has no interest in, or use for, guns. Might we be talking more about attempts to protect the public here? It would then come back to a question of equal treatment of weapons, and the question of why it appears to be somewhat acceptable to single out guns.

If we're about punishing, then why not take their tv, laptop, and smart phone if that's what they value? If we're about protection...... well, why even bother? Guns don't kill people, people kill people, right?

Just seems like it's logic in a half measure.

 

[Exorcet]

Death? Of course. Life in prison? Certainly. Revoking gun rights? Well, that does nothing as a punishment for someone that has no interest in, or use for, guns.

Which would be an argument to make it situational.

Might we be talking more about attempts to protect the public here? It would then come back to a question of equal treatment of weapons, and the question of why it appears to be somewhat acceptable to single out guns.

It's acceptable to single out anything in particular. Sentencing is partially subjective. I don't see an easy way to determine how many years someone should go to prison for a murder, but I do know that in not respecting the rights of others they lose their own rights. If the punishment is arbitrarily a loss of gun rights, there is nothing wrong with that, but as you point out it may not actually be effective in doing anything.

If we're about punishing, then why not take their tv, laptop, and smart phone if that's what they value? If we're about protection...... well, why even bother? Guns don't kill people, people kill people, right?

Or just send them to prison, which takes all of the above. As far as selecting what to take away, you could argue along the lines of necessity. A criminal is given jail time, but in the hopes of reintegrating the person into society they are allowed to leave jail and get a job. It's decided that the person should have access to certain items restricted to deter them from committing a crime again. Guns are added to this list of items because they are deemed unnecessary in this person's day to day life. Car ownership is allowed though to provide transportation to a potential job. It's a subjective sentence, and whether or not it achieves the desired effect is another matter.

On "guns don't kill people...", we're not dealing with the guns, we're dealing with the people. If a specific person is unable to take possession of a gun while respecting other people's rights, then the gun can be taken away. You bring up the point that taking just the gun away does not accomplish much, if anything. I think that's a good point and it's not something I've thought much of before your post, but I don't see anything wrong with targeting a specific right in principle.

 

[LeMansAid]

If the punishment is arbitrarily a loss of gun rights, there is nothing wrong with that, but as you point out it may not actually be effective in doing anything.

Ineffective, but also it arguably demonises guns, as if they're something that have a power of their own. If a particular convicted felon is denied gun rights, but has never owned a gun, I think it can be logically assumed that it's not as punishment. If not for punishment, it can only be for protection. Coupling a person who's never owned a gun, with denying them the right to a gun seems to suggest that a gun has some sort of criminal allure, and will inspire criminal activity. To me it appears at odds with the idea of treating all tools that can be used as weapons as equal.

Or just send them to prison, which takes all of the above.

I'm thinking more about once they are back in society.....

A criminal is given jail time, but in the hopes of reintegrating the person into society they are allowed to leave jail and get a job. It's decided that the person should have access to certain items restricted to deter them from committing a crime again. Guns are added to this list of items because they are deemed unnecessary in this person's day to day life.

What about other unnecessary items? Again, it's fine to say "Well, they've subjectively infringed another's rights, so must submit to our subjective limiting of their rights", but the things we choose in that subjective judgement say something additional. If a gun is a benign object by default, I don't see any reason why it should be given any precedence over the many, many, many other benign by default objects. This is the singling out that I'm addressing - not on whether or not we can, but whether or not we should, if we're being ideologically consistent.

 

[Exorcet]

Ineffective, but also it arguably demonises guns, as if they're something that have a power of their own. If a particular convicted felon is denied gun rights, but has never owned a gun, I think it can be logically assumed that it's not as punishment. If not for punishment, it can only be for protection. Coupling a person who's never owned a gun, with denying them the right to a gun seems to suggest that a gun has some sort of criminal allure, and will inspire criminal activity. To me it appears at odds with the idea of treating all tools that can be used as weapons as equal.

You don't have to treat all weapons/tools as equal. The point that arguing that a car can kill just as well as a gun is to point out that what people consider dangerous is subjective, so to put in place limits on what a rights respecting person can and can't have based on those subjective rankings doesn't really make sense. I don't think the non-felon case carries over to the felon case. They're not mirrors of each other specifically because criminals give up rights.

What about other unnecessary items?

It works the same, I picked out guns as an example because that was the subject of discussion. What is and isn't necessary in my example or some similar situation would be determined case by case. Maybe the best solution is just jail time, or maybe it's a careful reintegration into society with partial returns of rights over time. My example from the last post could be changed so that the car is removed instead of or in addition to guns.

Again, it's fine to say "Well, they've subjectively infringed another's rights, so must submit to our subjective limiting of their rights", but the things we choose in that subjective judgement say something additional. If a gun is a benign object by default, I don't see any reason why it should be given any precedence over the many, many, many other benign by default objects.

It's not the object that's the concern, it's the person when they are in the possession of the object. This is why I think you make a good point in saying that revoking gun rights for someone who has never owned one may not accomplish anything. On the other side of the spectrum, someone who is willing to kill with anything obviously isn't hindered by a loss of gun rights because they can just use something else. They can't be trusted with anything.

This is the singling out that I'm addressing - not on whether or not we can, but whether or not we should, if we're being ideologically consistent.

The downside I see to singling out certain rights is making them scapegoats (or demonizing as you put it), but ideally people wouldn't jump to that extreme by default. If they did, you probably wouldn't have them properly respecting rights in the first place.

 

[LeMansAid]

I think we're pretty close on this, but there's maybe a little more to be wrung out.

The downside I see to singling out certain rights is making them scapegoats (or demonizing as you put it), but ideally people wouldn't jump to that extreme by default. If they did, you probably wouldn't have them properly respecting rights in the first place.

I wouldn't see it as extreme. It's a fairly rudimentary process to view the selective forbidding of access to items, for someone that's never possessed those items, to mean that the item itself is an issue. In reality, yes, it's the person that is the issue, but the unfounded selectivity undermines that. It's where the responsibility of the subjective nature of protection comes in, along with the responsibility of it's acceptance or non-acceptance by observers (us).

I don't accept half measures. If a person can't be trusted with a gun, then they shouldn't be trusted at all, and shouldn't be part of society. If they're allowed back in to society, any arbitrary differentiation in regards to possessions can be deemed to be a commentary on the possessions' risk values, and not the person's risk value. I think that some people unwittingly elevate the perceived risk value of guns by accepting that it's ok to forbid access based purely on a person being a convicted felon. It stuck out to me when reading the response to the subject raised in post #3392.

Just like there are ramifications to embracing the subjective and not respecting the rights of others, there are also ramifications to forgoing logic in dealing with such a person. Subjectivity invites subjectivity, illogical invites illogical. Without holistically applying equivalency, one opens the door for others to do the same.

 

[Exorcet]

I wouldn't see it as extreme. It's a fairly rudimentary process to view the selective forbidding of access to items, for someone that's never possessed those items, to mean that the item itself is an issue. In reality, yes, it's the person that is the issue, but the unfounded selectivity undermines that. It's where the responsibility of the subjective nature of protection comes in, along with the responsibility of it's acceptance or non-acceptance by observers (us).

I can't so easily separate the punishment from the case where it is handed out. So what you would have ideally isn't a link between criminals and items, but criminals losing various things based on their specific cases (assuming the whole thing isn't deemed pointless). When you find that the ideal isn't being met and people are creating a link that isn't there, the solution isn't to rig things so that they match people's lines of thought, it's to correct people's lines of thought.

I don't accept half measures. If a person can't be trusted with a gun, then they shouldn't be trusted at all, and shouldn't be part of society.

I don't think this is necessarily true, although I think you could argue either way. Someone willing to kill shouldn't be allowed in society. Someone who doesn't intend to kill, but is just negligent is more complicated. If they're simply universally negligent, it might be near as makes no difference to being willing to violate rights. If someone just isn't very good with things that are unfamiliar to them then I don't think they need to be permanently banned from society for overestimating their ability.

If they're allowed back in to society, any arbitrary differentiation in regards to possessions can be deemed to be a commentary on the possessions' risk values, and not the person's risk value. I think that some people unwittingly elevate the perceived risk value of guns by accepting that it's ok to forbid access based purely on a person being a convicted felon. It stuck out to me when reading the response to the subject raised in post #3392.

If people are unreasonably elevating something, then discussion is needed to point out to people that they're being emotional.

Just like there are ramifications to embracing the subjective and not respecting the rights of others, there are also ramifications to forgoing logic in dealing with such a person. Subjectivity invites subjectivity, illogical invites illogical. Without holistically applying equivalency, one opens the door for others to do the same.

Subjectivity is fine as long as it isn't causing a violation of one's rights. On paper as long as that is known you can invite as much subjectivity as you want and there won't be a problem. However that doesn't mean things are ideal, which is what you're getting at. While it would be the right of everyone in a libertarian society to ban guns practically out of existence, I wouldn't want to see it. No matter my stance though, the justice system isn't there to shape the behaviors or opinions of free society. Given that a criminal gives up rights by being a criminal, I won't say that targeting specific rights as a punishment should be prohibited. This doesn't mean that it has to be invoked. So basically we just go back to applying it (if at all) on a case by case by basis. If it doesn't make sense to use it, then don't use it. If it never makes sense, it is never applied.

 

[LeMansAid]

Someone willing to kill shouldn't be allowed in society. Someone who doesn't intend to kill, but is just negligent is more complicated. If they're simply universally negligent, it might be near as makes no difference to being willing to violate rights. If someone just isn't very good with things that are unfamiliar to them then I don't think they need to be permanently banned from society for overestimating their ability.

I should have been clearer. I meant to refer specifically to a person that can't be trusted with a gun due to not being trusted to refrain from intentionally harming in general.

Subjectivity is fine as long as it isn't causing a violation of one's rights. On paper as long as that is known you can invite as much subjectivity as you want and there won't be a problem. However that doesn't mean things are ideal, which is what you're getting at.

Yes, though it seems that to some it doesn't register that in endorsing taking responsibility for actions, a responsibility for reactions must apply. So where I said "subjectivity invites subjectivity" I'm talking about the point where an individual has already violated another's rights and exposes themselves to a subjective reaction. If the reaction is illogical, the reactor submits themselves to the illogical. Read - if a person in favour of gun freedom applies a punishment that includes the forbidding of gun ownership to a convicted felon, even though that part of the punishment is illogical, they should not decry others in applying faulty logic to guns in general - because it's equivalent to what they did. It ends up being the old "Do as I say, not as I do".

If people are unreasonably elevating something, then discussion is needed to point out to people that they're being emotional.

It's not necessarily emotional, maybe more of an accepting of the status quo, or the absence of consideration. I can see how failing to discriminate against a convicted felon (especially a violent one) in regards to guns could be a "bad look" and unsettle gun freedom opponents, but beneath that it's potentially demonstrating an inconsistency that says "guns are worse".

 

[Exorcet]

Yes, though it seems that to some it doesn't register that in endorsing taking responsibility for actions, a responsibility for reactions must apply. So where I said "subjectivity invites subjectivity" I'm talking about the point where an individual has already violated another's rights and exposes themselves to a subjective reaction. If the reaction is illogical, the reactor submits themselves to the illogical. Read - if a person in favour of gun freedom applies a punishment that includes the forbidding of gun ownership to a convicted felon, even though that part of the punishment is illogical, they should not decry others in applying faulty logic to guns in general - because it's equivalent to what they did. It ends up being the old "Do as I say, not as I do".

Right, this is what I was highlighting with my point about things not being ideal. People could near universally ban guns "just because" and no amount of reason would make them change their minds if they were determined to not be reasonable.

This is like the case of just slapping a gun ban on anyone who is a criminal. It's not like keeping the option to ban rights on the table though, there is nothing illogical about leaving all options open. And again, I want to point out that if done right, it's not only going to be guns that could be taken away.

It's not necessarily emotional, maybe more of an accepting of the status quo, or the absence of consideration. I can see how failing to discriminate against a convicted felon (especially a violent one) in regards to guns could be a "bad look" and unsettle gun freedom opponents, but beneath that it's potentially demonstrating an inconsistency that says "guns are worse".

It's not just about how things look. The reason for the loss of gun rights is specifically because the person is a felon. Go back through the thought process and you should end up with the idea that "this person + gun = bad" at some point. That is, if the decision was made to take the gun away. Now it could be that the association is made by default, which poses the problem you presented of bowing to illogical tendencies. However if the gun ban is given out quite a lot, it could also just be that most people who are criminals are (deemed) likely to misuse a gun. Going back to earlier posts, I've agreed with you that that this might not be true. I don't feel confident applying a blanket rule to all cases. I say that the best option is to leave everything on the table and use what is needed when it is useful. Maybe we would see low gun right retention rates among felons. If it is done in error or without logical thought, it should be easy to build an argument against it in those cases where it is misused. Going on a small tangent of the hypocrisy of "Do as I say..."; the right thing to do in that case is to point out the inconsistency so that the people committed to it can fix it. Being blind to one problem doesn't make you blind to all problems. Back to gun bans among felons, if there is a statistical lean towards banning guns over other items, I don't immediately see that as a statement that guns are worse, fullstop. I'm more inclined to think that guns are more prone to abuse by criminals. This could be for a variety of reasons, including subjective perceptions by those criminals about guns. This is why it's important to point out that we don't need to treat everything equally. Things aren't inherently equal. This isn't at odds with the stance that free people should be able to set their own limits when they have the right to do so.

 

[Lizard]

This pretty much sums up everything I believe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=338&v=lL8JEEt2RxI


Language by the way. And it is quite funny.

 

[Michael88]

Just a couple of days ago there was a guy going on a killing spree with a car, he killed three and seriously injured 26 people. Children and elderly too. He simply drove his car into a group of people to kill as many as possible.

And now imagine the uproar if he had used a gun, people would wave the ban hammer and would not hesitate to condemn every gun owner in my little country.

But since the weapon of choice was a car its all ok, even though more people die in car accidents in a month than people die from privately owned guns in 50 years.

Lets ban privately owned cars and allow only public transports and taxis on the streets.

 

[ExigeEvan]

So I've recently moved home and it's come to.my attention that there's a shooting club just down the road from me. No more excuses! I'll let you know how it goes!

 

[Zenith]

So I've recently moved home and it's come to.my attention that there's a shooting club just down the road from me. No more excuses! I'll let you know how it goes!

Try to go with an experienced shooter. It's easier to learn and safer. In general, it's an inanimate object. Treat it with a similar kind of respect that you'd a car.

I've found that the only people who have never shot a gun, then go own to talk about how it made them feel powerful or violent or macho are people who have existing biases against weapon ownership.

 

[TenEightyOne]

But since the weapon of choice was a car its all ok, even though more people die in car accidents in a month than people die from privately owned guns in 50 years.

Oddly it's the same number for each in the USA and a quarter of all teen deaths there are by gun.

In Austria the rate of gun deaths is at 2.9/100k compared to 6.9/100k for auto deaths. How exactly did you come up with your figures?

 

[LeMansAid]

In Austria the rate of gun deaths is at 2.9/100k compared to 6.9/100k for auto deaths. How exactly did you come up with your figures?

Gun deaths are ultimately counted relative to dog years?

 

[Michael88]

Oddly it's the same number for each in the USA and a quarter of all teen deaths there are by gun.

In Austria the rate of gun deaths is at 2.9/100k compared to 6.9/100k for auto deaths. How exactly did you come up with your figures?

Now take your fancy number and strip away the deaths from suicide by gun, killings with illegal guns and deaths caused by the use of deadly force by the police.

Oh and I thought it goes without saying that the number I used was just a sarcastic way to tell you that killings by legal privately owned guns is pretty damn low compared to deaths by car accidents. Guess it wasn't so obvious after all, next time I'll add a few more 0's just to be clear.

 

[Lizard]

I heard giving everyone guns was a great idea.

A lot of people can't even shoot the damn things well enough to use them as defensive weapons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...r-people-try-to-use-handguns-in-self-defense/

 

[Garage13]

well haitch a good chunk of people don't receive enough instruction on how to properly maintain and use a firearm.The main reason why i oppose gun control/gun free zones is because every single measure that the government has implemented has failed miserably.gun control only restricts the law abiding citizen not the criminal who don't obey the laws.
I know you may think if everyone is armed everybody would shoot each other,no i don't think so.More often than not everybody would treat each other with the mindset that if things escalate it can get deadly

 

[Blood Eagle]

I heard giving everyone guns was a great idea.

A lot of people can't even shoot the damn things well enough to use them as defensive weapons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...r-people-try-to-use-handguns-in-self-defense/

This is probably the biggest pile of garbage I've ever seen. So let's give a handgun, not holstered, to Mom with no firearms training and then put them in a simulator to prove that nobody should carry. Sound. Because that is what having a concealed weapons permit means, not ever practicing, not ever using, not knowing how to use your gun, and never having any classes on and what to do. One person did this, so will everyone else Horrible example.

 

[Swagger897]

This is probably the biggest pile of garbage I've ever seen. So let's give a handgun, not holstered, to Mom with no firearms training and then put them in a simulator to prove that nobody should carry. Sound. Because that is what having a concealed weapons permit means, not ever practicing, not ever using, not knowing how to use your gun, and never having any classes on and what to do. One person did this, so will everyone else Horrible example.

yup.... All it does is prove how stupid people are...