Let's Have That Discussion about Guns

[Crock Hunter]

Because that is what the goal is – a total ban on the private ownership of firearms. .

And this is why you and Kurt are utterly useless in this discussion.... .. you're just too stupid to take part in it.. .

Get back to jerking off your gun.. .. It's time the adults handled this problem..

[Wneglia]

Not very legible, but you can get the point.

[Wneglia]

Here is just OECD countries



Obviously there may be some discrepancies in the data. Wikipedia lists US homicide rate as 4.2 per 100,000

Also Vrede, if there was a positive correlation between guns in circulation and murder rates, how do you explain in your graph that murders in the US went down since the 70's?

[O Really]

The discussion about guns I'd like to have isn't about how many guns per person there are, nor whether it is possible to murder someone with a hypodermic needle or a brick. The discussion I'd like to have is about particular types of firearms and whether there is any rational reason for civilians having easy access to firearms designed for the military to kill a lot of people as quickly as possible. Thus far, I haven't heard anything other than "because we've got the Second Amendment" and "I might run across an elephant in the parking lot" or some such nonsense. What particular gun activity could not be done with some other type of gun other than an AR-15 type? There are plenty of good hunting firearms, right? Target firearms? Self- and home defense firearms? Even some other macho dick-enlarging firearms, right? Just holding a 12-gauge cruiser lets you keep your "man card" doesn't it? Is there any doubt you could defend a home invasion with that?

We (collectively) shouldn't accept the argument that there is no reason necessary to own and use military-styled and purposed weapons. And what kind of encounter does a person reasonably expect to need a 30-shot magazine, or a 15-shot for a pistol? Real answers welcome.

[Wneglia]

Counting the latest tragedy, in the last 30 years there have been 70 mass shootings with 543 deaths (average 18/year)

In the U.S. an average of 40-50 people per year are killed by lightning

Therefore you are 3 times as likely to die from a lightning strike than a mass shooting.

Don't you love statistics.

[rstrong]

Also Vrede, if there was a positive correlation between guns in circulation and murder rates, how do you explain in your graph that murders in the US went down since the 70's?

Better policing. The murder rate went down for Canada and most other OECD countries too. The flip-side of that has been cities facing skyrocketing police budgets.

BTW, Here's the source spreadsheets for that data:

Intentional homicide, count and rate per 100,000 population (1995 - 2011)

Percentage of homicides by firearm, number of homicides by firearm and homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population

Note the difference between homicide data, and gun homicide data.

The first, the one that you link to, the US rate is a mere 2.6 times that of Canada, and 4.2 times that of Australia.

In the second, the US rate is 6.6 times that of Canada, and 33 times that of Australia.

The difference is similar with other OECD countries.

[Crock Hunter]

If you are ignorant enough (we already know that's true) to believe that a ban is not on every liberal's wish list, you are as big of a dumbass as we always assumed..

Just how many times and on how many forums will I have to shove these facts up your ass.. .. Despite the regular NRA disinformation enemas you love so well . . "every liberal's wish list" absolutely does NOT include banning guns .. .. .

One week ago, a ban on semi-autos would have seemed just as absurd, but here we are...and you wonder why we fight you lying liberals for every inch of ground on this issue.

The push is to manage magazine size.. not ban semi-autos.. Damn you're as dishonest as always..

I'm a gun owner and an expert shot at that... my name's been on the board of top shooters at Allen Arms more than once.. . But I've never been so insecure about the size of my prick as to feel the need to own a flame thrower, a grenade launcher or an assault rifle.. These weapons have but one purpose .. military.. To hear you simpletons whine about using them for hunting is absolutely idiotic.. Until recently, I hunted deer and boar and can count on one hand the times I've taken more than one shot at any one such game.. . .. If it takes you assholes a 30 round clip to hunt.. you sure as hell have no business in the woods.. .

I suppose you nitwits cry about not being able to fish using dynamite...

let the honest adults handle this.

We will .. that's why we're excluding NRA members, Republicans and you from the discussions... .

[neoplacebo]

The crowd down in the left side of the doc's graph....from zero to about 12 or so are areas in which you are likely to be hacked to death with a large blade instead of being killed with a gun. Personally, I'd rather be hit with an RPG than be hacked up with a glistening blade, but that's just me. As for military style weaponry, I don't think it should be available to the general public. Same with heroin and psychedelics; some folks just can't handle them.....

[Stinger]

If adults are needed, you sure as hell are out of place here, boy. If you are ignorant enough (we already know that's true) to believe that a ban is not on every liberal's wish list, you are as big of a dumbass as we always assumed.

Well, I qualify as a liberal in your book, and a ban is not on my wish list, so you must be as big of a dumbass as we always assumed.

Damn!!! That big. Wow!

[Stinger]

Counting the latest tragedy, in the last 30 years there have been 70 mass shootings with 543 deaths (average 18/year)

In the U.S. an average of 40-50 people per year are killed by lightning

Therefore you are 3 times as likely to die from a lightning strike than a mass shooting.

Don't you love statistics.

What do you think your odds of being struck by lightning would be if clouds carried 30-bolt magazines?

[mike]

Counting the latest tragedy, in the last 30 years there have been 70 mass shootings with 543 deaths (average 18/year)

In the U.S. an average of 40-50 people per year are killed by lightning

Therefore you are 3 times as likely to die from a lightning strike than a mass shooting.

Don't you love statistics.

What do you think your odds of being struck by lightning would be if clouds carried 30-bolt magazines?

Perhaps Wneglia is attempting to argue mass shootings are an act of God?

[O Really]

I'm a liberal by anybody's definition, and I have no interest in banning all guns. I'm a gun owner who's had more training in self and home defense than probably 90% of the gun owners in the country. I'd like for guns whose primary purpose, by design, is for military personnel to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible to be very difficult for civilians to get. I'd like for law enforcement to have better firearms than bad guys. I'd like for people who own weapons such as (for example) the Bushmaster to be subject to criminal and civil penalties if they let criminals or kids get their guns. I'd like a really really steep tax on ammunition for those types of firearms. I'd like anybody who thought they needed one of those types of firearms to show what that need is, register themselves and their weapon. I'd like for those making hunting laws to outlaw hunting with those types of weapons. I'd like to make it illegal to use those types of weapons by civilians at commercial firing ranges. I'd make it illegal to sell that type of weapon, by dealer or individual, and make possession by anyone without the required licence in an approved location a felony with a minimum 10 year sentence. I'd increase mandatory penalties for anyone illegally possessing or using a firearm (such as felons, under age, etc.) Those penalties might not necessarily be prison, but might be financial, and might include registration - similar to sex offenders.

But ban all guns? Nope, not this liberal. The paranoid right wing is mistaken again.

[Wneglia]

I'm a liberal by anybody's definition, and I have no interest in banning all guns. I'm a gun owner who's had more training in self and home defense than probably 90% of the gun owners in the country. I'd like for guns whose primary purpose, by design, is for military personnel to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible to be very difficult for civilians to get. I'd like for law enforcement to have better firearms than bad guys. I'd like for people who own weapons such as (for example) the Bushmaster to be subject to criminal and civil penalties if they let criminals or kids get their guns. I'd like a really really steep tax on ammunition for those types of firearms. I'd like anybody who thought they needed one of those types of firearms to show what that need is, register themselves and their weapon. I'd like for those making hunting laws to outlaw hunting with those types of weapons. I'd like to make it illegal to use those types of weapons by civilians at commercial firing ranges. I'd make it illegal to sell that type of weapon, by dealer or individual, and make possession by anyone without the required licence in an approved location a felony with a minimum 10 year sentence. I'd increase mandatory penalties for anyone illegally possessing or using a firearm (such as felons, under age, etc.) Those penalties might not necessarily be prison, but might be financial, and might include registration - similar to sex offenders.

But ban all guns? Nope, not this liberal. The paranoid right wing is mistaken again.

I'm not a liberal, but think all your suggestions make sense, and I would support them. I almost bought a Bushmaster AR-15 on impulse, but now in retrospect, I'm glad they were sold out at the time. My wife and I just took a firearms safety (pistol) course, and don't plan to carry weapons outside the house, except to the range for practice.

[bannination]

The science behind gun violence: Link

[billy.pilgrim]

The science behind gun violence: Link

there you go again, interjecting facts into the conversation.

[Mad American]

I'm a liberal by anybody's definition, and I have no interest in banning all guns. I'm a gun owner who's had more training in self and home defense than probably 90% of the gun owners in the country. I'd like for guns whose primary purpose, by design, is for military personnel to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible to be very difficult for civilians to get. I'd like for law enforcement to have better firearms than bad guys. I'd like for people who own weapons such as (for example) the Bushmaster to be subject to criminal and civil penalties if they let criminals or kids get their guns. I'd like a really really steep tax on ammunition for those types of firearms. I'd like anybody who thought they needed one of those types of firearms to show what that need is, register themselves and their weapon. I'd like for those making hunting laws to outlaw hunting with those types of weapons. I'd like to make it illegal to use those types of weapons by civilians at commercial firing ranges. I'd make it illegal to sell that type of weapon, by dealer or individual, and make possession by anyone without the required licence in an approved location a felony with a minimum 10 year sentence. I'd increase mandatory penalties for anyone illegally possessing or using a firearm (such as felons, under age, etc.) Those penalties might not necessarily be prison, but might be financial, and might include registration - similar to sex offenders.

But ban all guns? Nope, not this liberal. The paranoid right wing is mistaken again.

And you claim to know about guns??? How do you define ammunition for "those types of guns"? There are countless different firearms in same chamberings. Take the .223 for example.....the Remington 700 VBL, a 5 shot bolt action, uses the .223 as a "standard" chambering. I own New England handi-rifle, a single shot breech loader, chambered for .223. My brother-in-law owns a Ruger M-77, 5 shot bolt action, in .223. That is just a VERY small sample of different weapons using the .223. So, how do you taxe ammunition just for "those types of guns"?

[rstrong]

Farmers and millionaires have a lot of land to protect. And no matter how many groundhogs you turn into pink mist, your assault rifle won't clear the whole colony. With the criminals commonly having assault rifles, you need better protection. But there IS an answer:

Private American companies have started launching payloads into orbit around the same time as tinpot dictatorships like Iraq and North Korea.

With those same tinpot dictatorships now developing nuclear capability, I'm waiting for an American company to start a 2nd amendment court challenge to be allowed to sell American citizens their own private nuclear deterrent.

As the right will tell you, anything the constitution doesn't specifically restrict, is allowed.

[rstrong]

...I'm waiting for an American company to start a 2nd amendment court challenge to be allowed to sell American citizens their own private nuclear deterrent.

As the right will tell you, anything the constitution doesn't specifically restrict, is allowed.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I'm hoping Santa brings me a functional tank with shells for Xmas. Last year, all I got was a lousy single-shot muzzle loader.

Wikipedia: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution: Meaning of "well regulated militia"

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that the term implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. In other words those nukes should come with a "Read before using" pamphlet.

[rstrong]

However, if "Arms" can be interpreted to apply to anything other than single-shot muzzle loaders, then it has to apply to tanks and nukes.

Yup. "arms" is just short for "armaments." Anything from clubs to swords and guns to ICBMS.

[billy.pilgrim]

as I said on the school shooting thread

the 2nd has long been nullified by technology. as nearly everyone, right and left, agrees, your crazy uncle shouldn't be allowed to have a nuke. now we are left with a non-constitutional decision regarding who should have what type of small arms


the 2nd has left us with something very important. it is absolute proof that the Constitution is a living document that can change with the times and there were no super being founding fathers - just a bunch of progressive reformers who created a tremendously far-sighted plan for our country.

too bad there wasn't an asimov or huxley in the group - but then again - without modern technology offering proof that the borks of the world are idiots stuck in the past, who knows where we would be

but as is, we are stuck with regulation on one hand

or ragin american having a nuke

pretty easy choice