Gun Laws

yannipapal – which assertions in the “Gun Facts” document are you refuting?

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]yannipapal wrote:

…For instance, in the last 8 years that they have data (1999-2006), 5,974 people died due to unintentional firearms injuries…[/quote]

Ahhh, I love it when folks bring up gun stats. Knowing there are around 200,000,000 guns in America, we can do a little arithmetic. 5974 divided by 200,000,000 divided by 8 (years) gives us an unintentional firearms death rate of .0000037 accidental deaths for every gun per year.

For comparison: 251,000,000 passenger vehicles with 43,200 deaths gets us a rate of .00017. So someone living in the US is 46 times more likely to die in a car wreck than a gun accident.

Nephritis, inflammation of the kidney, causes 43,000 deaths which gives us a rate of .00014. So someone in America is 39 times more likely to die from kidney inflammation than accidental gun death.

Yanni, I think we can safely establish that from a statistical perspective we as Americans have little to worry about when it comes to accidental gun deaths.[/quote]

If only it were accidental deaths that we worry about;)

Anyway, a main point is that cars are a consumer product, subject to a level of regulation that can force bi automobile companies to recall their product if it’s faulty :wink: On the other hand, guns are not regulated in that sense. And before we get too excited here—though you bring reasonable points, Push, I am sure others will flame---- I am in favor of devices that can increase the safety and/or accountability of firearm users and more safe storage practices. I don’t really think anyone should take my guns away.

As for the stats: homicide deaths in 2006 due to firearms, 30,034. Rate of 9.93 per 100,000. A lot? Heck, not in comparison to heart disease: 631,250 deaths in 2006 (20 times as many as from firearm homicides). But very close to motor vehicle accidents (45,509). How about we try and make both firearms and motor vehicles safer?

You see, I am not debating whether it’s a god-given right or not to own guns, or whether the government has the right to take them away. I don’t really care what someone does in their backyard.

But asking companies to make their products safer to use and easier to track down in case of misuse, and teaching folks to store their guns safer? I feel that’s is something we ought to be able to agree on.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
yannipapal – which assertions in the “Gun Facts” document are you refuting?
[/quote]

A few, but the easiest one to point out:
p. 53 “Myth: 30,000 people are killed with guns every year.
Fact: 54% of these deaths are suicides (80% in Canada). Numerous studies have
shown that the presence or absence of a firearm does not change the overall (i.e., gun plus
non-gun) suicide rate.”

check out the wisqars website. I have attached the report that comes from the cdc. it verifies the 30,000 ppl/year “myth”. and since you can see the results by state if you so desire, you can actually see that Canada fiures are not included…

and steely, like i said, i am not in favor of gun control. but i do believe that making guns safer to use (companies) and teaching people to store and use their guns safely is common round for both advocates and opponents of gun control.

Edit: I see the pic didn’t upload, so if you doubt my post, take 1 min to check the website.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]yannipapal wrote:

You see, I am not debating whether it’s a god-given right or not to own guns, or whether the government has the right to take them away. I don’t really care what someone does in their backyard.[/quote]

However, you missed the point. Teaching folks to handle guns more safely would tend to cause less mishaps. It’s in the handling of the guns that safety issues arise not whether or not they are stored safely. A subtle but distinct difference. Get my drift? (I do concede that storage falls under the category of handling)

[/quote]

^^ Like i said, I don’t care what you do in your backyard. don’t put words into my mouth and believe you know my philosophy…

As for your other points, I am sure my older brother, who was killed in an accidental shooting by a gang in our neighborhood would appreciate them, Push.

Same goes for the 43-year old mother that I am seeing tomorrow, whose 10 year old son accidentally shot and killed himself.

Over and out.

The first and only thing that comes to mind is this. The Luby’s massacre in Killeen, TX Oct. 16, 1991. No one will ever convince me that many of those people could have been saved if Suzanna Hupp would have had her pistol in her purse. Read the full story if you haven’t. Hupp is not a gun activist before or after the incident that killed both of her parents. You can watch her in front of the House of Rep. telling her story, and making a ton of sense that they could not deny. It is very eye opening.

And for everyone that believes the police will save you. I have news for you. As badly as they want to be proactive, 99.9% of the time police depts. are reactive. That means they show up after you die, after you have been raped, and after your child has been taken. Been there. Lived the life, and done the job…

May we always have the right to bear arms, and protect ourselves…

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Razor29 wrote:
The first and only thing that comes to mind is this. The Luby’s massacre in Killeen, TX Oct. 16, 1991. No one will ever convince me that many of those people could have been saved if Suzanna Hupp would have had her pistol in her purse. Read the full story if you haven’t. Hupp is not a gun activist before or after the incident that killed both of her parents. You can watch her in front of the House of Rep. telling her story, and making a ton of sense that they could not deny. It is very eye opening.

And for everyone that believes the police will save you. I have news for you. As badly as they want to be proactive, 99.9% of the time police depts. are reactive. That means they show up after you die, after you have been raped, and after your child has been taken. Been there. Lived the life, and done the job…

May we always have the right to bear arms, and protect ourselves…[/quote]

FYI: I think you intended to include the word “not” in your third sentence.[/quote]

Push Suzanna Hupp had left her gun in the vehicle to comply with state law, the implication is she could have ended the massacre had she had her weapon on her.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
wow I never tought you guys would create websites with phony facts to support your ideology. I never get used your national political insanity
[/quote]

If I were you I wouldn’t worry as much about American “political insanity” as I would Canadian assault victims. The per capita rate is twice that of the US.

Your kidnapping rate is ridiculous too. #3 in the world? Sheesh. Talk about national political insanity…

Your number of rape victims doubles that of the US. Insane!!

Your suicide rates exceed America’s too. Gee fuckin whiz, what’s the matter with you Canucks? I’d tell you to whack off more to help you with your suicidal tendencies but maybe that would just increase your ridiculously high rape rate. Or maybe is would help it. Whadda you think?

Your total crime victim rate is higher than the US as well. Sonny, you got plenty of problems right in your own back yard and you’re here whining about a foreign country’s problem?

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/

Vous feriez bien pour fermer votre bouche si vous pouvez enlever votre pied.[/quote]

let’s look at a more known website

Homicide rate per 100 000 in Quebec, Canada (2006): 0,9 source: statistic Canada
Homicide rate per 100 000 in Montana, USA (2004): 3,2 source: Us bureau of statistics

Only judging by the Homicide rate it is approximately twice higher in USA than in Canada but I am sure you can make the facts say something else. the fact remains: less guns = less homicide

A few weeks ago my 5 year old fired her first gun. Now it was a BB gun in my parents’ basement at a target, but still. I did the same thing when I was her age. Why did we do this? Because she had started asking questions about guns. My father spent close to an hour talking about gun safety, responsibility, etc before she even touched it.

I grew up in a big hunting family and there were always rifles out (not lying around but in an unlocked case) and we knew that my dad kept his hand gun in his underwear drawer. What kept us from playing with these? First of all we had no desire to go anywhere near my father’s underwear, but secondly we knew my father would give us a good slap if we touched them. We also knew that if we wanted to shoot one, we could ask and he would take us out.

I’m not condoning guns to be easily accessible to kids, but it was a different time when I was growing up. For the record, we have a gun safe in our bedroom with one of those hand keypads. I suppose I am just reiterating what has already been stated about proper education to avoid accidents. It’s a shame that more parents can’t step up to the plate and take responsibility for teaching their kids properly and unfortunately more accidents will occur as a result.

I think the only legislation that might possibly work is if we made it illegal for stupid people to have kids. I mean, if we didn’t have guns the King of England could just come in here and start pushing us around again.

[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
I mean, if we didn’t have guns the King of England could just come in here and start pushing us around again.[/quote]

Or worse, the King of Norway!!!

Just a side note-- BB guns, statistically are more ‘dangerous’ than firearms because many people regard them as toys and allow children unsupervised usage/abuse.

Not saying that’s your case S/P, just pointing that out in general.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
I mean, if we didn’t have guns the King of England could just come in here and start pushing us around again.[/quote]

Or worse, the King of Norway!!!

Just a side note-- BB guns, statistically are more ‘dangerous’ than firearms because many people regard them as toys and allow children unsupervised usage/abuse.

Not saying that’s your case S/P, just pointing that out in general.[/quote]

I get what you are saying. She used a BB gun as I am not sure she is quite ready to handle a rifle!

And yet again, stupid parents not paying attention to what their kids are doing. Though I think this statement can be applied to many different scenarios.

Regardless of wether or not you think everybody should have a gun you should be a supporter of the second ammendment. Because the ammendment listed in the Bill of Rights are our strongest legal protections and if they can get rid of the second ammendment protections then they can get rid of the others as well.

I am a greedy bastard, I cherish all of my rights. Not just the rights that people can’t misuse.

If you have both a gun and a swimming pool, your child is approximately 100 times more likely to be killed by the pool as the gun. Pools don’t even have the personal protection (BOR) defense.

How can we let this problem go unchecked? We must save our nations children. We need to ban/regulate/incense pools and pool owners. There is no need for private pools anyway, because public pools with proper safeguards exist. If we are going to allow personal pools (something only a child hater would argue), we should regulate them to a maximum depth of only 2 feet. The owner should still be able to satisfy their water craving while better protecting children. Slides and diving boards are out of the question, these only lure children into the death trap.

Anyone that wants to ban firearms needs to provide me with a contract guaranteeing my protection. I live out in the country on a farm with no local police (no one for miles to hear a scream). This contract needs to guarantee both me and my animals from both humans and other animals (we have a lot of coyotes around that like to snatch dogs and livestock). This contract should allow me to take an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth (if a coyote pack snatches my dog I get to kill yours).

If you are not willing to sign this contract, then fuck off. I cannot understand how some person sitting in a fucking condo in some metro area like new york thinks they have the right to inform me I don’t need a gun and to forcibly take it away.

Never understood the anti-gun crowd.

  1. Strict gun laws have never helped much in high-crime cities.

  2. Precautionary principle. How do you know you won’t need a gun? How do you know nobody in your state or city will need one? Sometimes the unexpected happens. I can understand how people would feel safer knowing that, in the worst-case scenario, they would not be helpless.

(And, this probably brands me as a loon, but I think “What if someday we need protection against our own gov’t?” isn’t a totally crazy thing to ask. Yeah, it’s almost certainly not going to happen. No, I don’t have my tinfoil hat on. But if the founders thought it was worth worrying about, I don’t want to mess with the right to bear arms. Just in case. We design a lot of things, from bridges to pharmaceuticals, with precautions against unlikely catastrophes; I don’t think it’s nuts to have precautions against unlikely political catastrophes.)

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Never understood the anti-gun crowd.

  1. Strict gun laws have never helped much in high-crime cities.

  2. Precautionary principle. How do you know you won’t need a gun? How do you know nobody in your state or city will need one? Sometimes the unexpected happens. I can understand how people would feel safer knowing that, in the worst-case scenario, they would not be helpless.

(And, this probably brands me as a loon, but I think “What if someday we need protection against our own gov’t?” isn’t a totally crazy thing to ask. Yeah, it’s almost certainly not going to happen. No, I don’t have my tinfoil hat on. But if the founders thought it was worth worrying about, I don’t want to mess with the right to bear arms. Just in case. We design a lot of things, from bridges to pharmaceuticals, with precautions against unlikely catastrophes; I don’t think it’s nuts to have precautions against unlikely political catastrophes.)[/quote]

You are not a loon. This is a very real possibility. The fact that statements like this are instantly equated with “wearing a tin foil hat” is upsetting.