• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

2nd Amendment Is Dead

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
4,268
5,368
420
I'm fine with the assault weapon buy-back that Beto suggested - it's smart, banning certain guns won't do much for the existing hundreds of millions already out there. I'm glad a mainstream politician is actually promoting that policy; I would not have believed it 5 years ago. Slowly but surely we are inching towards stricter gun laws.
Retarded
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
The categorical definitions here should be built upon and/or modified as needed for current day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

I would prefer it to be less strict in fact.
So you won't define it? Just provide a link?

But hey, i'm easy. I can work with that. I'll even use the left leaning New York Times.


But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.
In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows.
Note: this hasn't changed. More people are killed with hammers and bats and other blunt instruments every year in the US than semi-auto rifles. And far, far more peol,e are killed with knives.

The continuing focus on assault weapons stems from the media’s obsessive focus on mass shootings, which disproportionately involve weapons like the AR-15, a civilian version of the military M16 rifle. This, in turn, obscures some grim truths about who is really dying from gunshots.
Annually, 5,000 to 6,000 black men are murdered with guns. Black men amount to only 6 percent of the population. Yet of the 30 Americans on average shot to death each day, half are black males.
Nyt going full nyt and focusing on the race of the victims without mentioning the dominant race of the shooters.

This politically defined category of guns — a selection of rifles, shotguns and handguns with “military-style” features — only figured in about 2 percent of gun crimes nationwide before the ban.
2%. It's almost like gun control advocates don't care about statistics.

The policy proved costly. Mr. Clinton blamed the ban for Democratic losses in 1994. Crime fell, but when the ban expired, a detailed study found no proof that it had contributed to the decline.
Ineffectual? Shocking.

Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement,” a Department of Justice-funded evaluation concluded.
Yikes.


But these acts of violence in schools and movie theaters have come to define the problem of gun violence in America. Most Americans do not know that gun homicides have decreased by 49 percent since 1993 as violent crime also fell, though rates of gun homicide in the United States are still much higher than those in other developed nations. A Pew survey conducted after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., found that 56 percent of Americans believed wrongly that the rate of gun crime was higher than it was 20 years ago.
In other words, most Americans have an extremely distorted view of guns and gun violence due to misreporting and propaganda from our media.

Mr. Landrieu and Mayor Michael A. Nutter of Philadelphia are founders of Cities United, a network of mayors trying to prevent the deaths of young black men. “This is not just a gun issue, this is an unemployment issue, it’s a poverty issue, it’s a family issue, it’s a culture of violence issue,” Mr. Landrieu said
Nyt talking hard truths here.

More than 20 years of research funded by the Justice Department has found that programs to target high-risk people or places, rather than targeting certain kinds of guns, can reduce gun violence.
But focusing on high risk people and places would be racist, according to the left. Guaranteed. And i can back that up if interested.

David M. Kennedy, the director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, argues that the issue of gun violence can seem enormous and intractable without first addressing poverty or drugs. A closer look at the social networks of neighborhoods most afflicted, he says, often shows that only a small number of men drive most of the violence. Identify them and change their behavior, and it’s possible to have an immediate impact.
Even nyt's saying bans don't work and we need to focus on root causes? Holy crap.

-------
Now, it's generally estimated over 50% of current gun sales are semi-automatic. How well do you think a confiscation is going to go over?

And what will it matter when people just turn to semi-auto handguns, which are arguably far more dangerous and concealable?
 

Lamel

Member
Nov 2, 2009
11,505
211
775
So you won't define it? Just provide a link?

But hey, i'm easy. I can work with that. I'll even use the left leaning New York Times.






Note: this hasn't changed. More people are killed with hammers and bats and other blunt instruments every year in the US than semi-auto rifles. And far, far more peol,e are killed with knives.





Nyt going full nyt and focusing on the race of the victims without mentioning the dominant race of the shooters.



2%. It's almost like gun control advocates don't care about statistics.



Ineffectual? Shocking.



Yikes.




In other words, most Americans have an extremely distorted view of guns and gun violence due to misreporting and propaganda from our media.



Nyt talking hard truths here.



But focusing on high risk people and places would be racist, according to the left. Guaranteed. And i can back that up if interested.



Even nyt's saying bans don't work and we need to focus on root causes? Holy crap.

-------
Now, it's generally estimated over 50% of current gun sales are semi-automatic. How well do you think a confiscation is going to go over?

And what will it matter when people just turn to semi-auto handguns, which are arguably far more dangerous and concealable?
I agree with you on this, the federal assault weapons ban reduced mass shootings but did not have a significant effect on other forms of gun violence.

My personal stance is that handgun sales should also require stricter standards with stricter training, and harsher punishments for misuse, misplacement, and sales. So I do not want to only focus on "assault rifles." I stuck to that point because that was Beto's main point. However I believe gun sales to civilians should be limited to a very small subset of guns - how to determine this is challenging and involves many forces. These weapons should all be registered and accounted for going forward.

As for a confiscation, that is a pipe-dream and unfair to current owners. It will go over much better if it is incentivized as a buy-back. And of course we need to focus on other causes of the gun violence epidemic as well; we can do multiple things simultaneously.
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
I agree with you on this, the federal assault weapons ban reduced mass shootings but did not have a significant effect on other forms of gun violence.

My personal stance is that handgun sales should also require stricter standards with stricter training, and harsher punishments for misuse, misplacement, and sales. So I do not want to only focus on "assault rifles." I stuck to that point because that was Beto's main point. However I believe gun sales to civilians should be limited to a very small subset of guns - how to determine this is challenging and involves many forces. These weapons should all be registered and accounted for going forward.

As for a confiscation, that is a pipe-dream and unfair to current owners. It will go over much better if it is incentivized as a buy-back. And of course we need to focus on other causes of the gun violence epidemic as well; we can do multiple things simultaneously.
Your endless regulations and compromises will continue to fail to curb gun violence and mass shootings, so you will endlessly ask for more 'compromise'. You will use the failings of your own legislation to point to the need for more legislation. Gun registration will turn to mandatory gun buyback will turn to gun confiscation will turn to civil war.

All because you want to empower the state, as if it needs any help. All with complete ignorance not only to history, but even present day situations across the globe where i promise you the citizenry wish they were armed against their tyrannical states. You speak from such a position of unbelievable privilege wanting to disarm us, completely ignorant to how important self defense is.

If you want to solve gun violence, you should be advocating against fatherless homes and the leftist policies that have caused them to reach epidemic levels. You should be railing against the pharmaceutical industry and a school system that puts far too many kids on psychotropic amd other drugs to calm them, ignoring side effects and never teaching them to cope with their own minds. We should be talking about the boy crisis that has left two+ generations of boys in troubled waters and is only getting worse.

But instead we are talking about ineffectual solutions that won't do a thing.

Ask yourself why mass shootings only became a fad after Columbine. Why it wasn't an issue when kids were learning how to shoot before they even turned ten, or took their guns to high school so they could hunt afterwards.

The problem is not, and has never been, guns. Even now, they aren't the problem. They are the solution. Train civilians in the use of firearms, and harden soft targets. Read the manifestos of crazies like the El Paso shooter, who literally told copycats to search out gun free zones and other soft targets. They want you disarmed, alone. It took over 30 minutes for police to respond in NZ [where gun control was already strict].

You've got this all backwards, and your good intentions will lead only to more death.
 
Last edited:

rorepmE

Member
Jan 20, 2019
258
353
290
Republic of Val Verde
I agree with you on this, the federal assault weapons ban reduced mass shootings but did not have a significant effect on other forms of gun violence.

My personal stance is that handgun sales should also require stricter standards with stricter training, and harsher punishments for misuse, misplacement, and sales. So I do not want to only focus on "assault rifles." I stuck to that point because that was Beto's main point. However I believe gun sales to civilians should be limited to a very small subset of guns - how to determine this is challenging and involves many forces. These weapons should all be registered and accounted for going forward.

As for a confiscation, that is a pipe-dream and unfair to current owners. It will go over much better if it is incentivized as a buy-back. And of course we need to focus on other causes of the gun violence epidemic as well; we can do multiple things simultaneously.
It did nothing of the sort.

You could still get an AR-15 during the ban. I know because I had a post-ban Bushmaster. You were limited to a 10rd mag but there were still millions upon millions of 30rd mags still in circulation that got grandfathered in. They went up in price but not prohibitively so. They pumped out millions before the ban went into effect.

Sold that sucker the second the AWB sunsetted.

Under the criteria of the AWB an "Assault Weapon" was any rifle that could accept a detachable magazine aka a "clip" and had two or more of the following "assault features"

1. Folding or telescoping stock (most manufacturers replaced with a fixed stock)
True Purpose: Not everyone is the same height with the same length of arms.
Liberal rationale: Makes it so you can easily stuff it down your pants and "conceal" it.

2. Pistol grip (usually kept or they changed it to an integrated fixed stock with thumb-hole grip)
True Purpose: Fire control and makes it easier to hold the firearm when reloading a mag
Liberal rationale: To facilitate spraying firing from the hip (because having your rifle shouldered with your sights on your target is.. uh.. worse?)

3. Bayonet mount (lol.. removed)
True Purpose: from early wars with muzzle loading muskets and rifles to the early 20th century when ammo was huge and they couldn't carry enough and often time wasted their ammo shooting at nothing. Very limited and practically obsolete in today's wars. Just a fashion accessory these days.
Liberal rationale: Keeps people from rushing shooters during reloads.. lol

4. Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one (removed)
True Purpose: to not blind yourself during low light firing.. you know.
Liberal rationale: to hide the location of a shooter (because they're popping out from dense Vietnam jungle tunnels...?)

There is always some nefarious ulterior motives.

5. Grenade launcher (lol... they removed the mounts)
True Purpose: to mount a 'nade launcher. Moot because expensive, availability, and requires extensive background checks Class III stamps to even get the *launcher*, excluding the grenades.
Liberal rationale: HAHA....

So basically they skirted the ban by removing the cosmetic features and ta-da, you had "post-ban" model.

Same weapon, now without he lethal bayonet lugs!

The gun manufacturers probably made off like a bandit being able to sell a weapon with less manufacturing cost at a higher price. Good job!
 
Last edited:

daveonezero

Member
Nov 19, 2018
554
340
295
Did you read what I actually wrote?
yeah from the other posts you clearly do not understand the mechanics or functions of firearm components.

So yes I did read it and the above posters basically explained what the ban did. Pointing out how you don't understand wha the assault weapons ban was. And you just want to ban guns. It's simple.

You don't have to lie. or sugar coat it. Shoot us straight. Say you want private guns out of the hands of individuals and you want to have an authoritarian police state.

The idiocracy of the AWB. I'm glad there are companies that just slide right past it and make this possible.

 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
Well, let's give it a whirl. We're not doing very well otherwise.
We are doing fantastic. Gun violence has been dropping steadily for decades, though all this stupid anti-police rhetoric may see it rise again.

And we don't cede one of the most important rights ever to the government on a 'whirl'. Especially not to authoritarian crazies who don't even respect the 1st amendment and burn 'free speech' flags.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

Rudelord

Member
Jun 11, 2013
484
255
490
Being an ignorant Brit that I am, Aren't "red flag" laws suppose to prevent from edgy people buying a weapon to cause harm to someone? or am I missing something?
The idea is that you'd flag someone with some questionable behaviors like frequent outbursts, writing name lists or unusual shit like that.
The issue is that kind of system relies on a baseline level of trust between you and your fellow citizen, and depending on where you live in the US it's not at all difficult to see how that could be abused for malevolent purposes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rockbottom12

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
799
788
360
The idea is that you'd flag someone with some questionable behaviors like frequent outbursts, writing name lists or unusual shit like that.
The issue is that kind of system relies on a baseline level of trust between you and your fellow citizen, and depending on where you live in the US it's not at all difficult to see how that could be abused for malevolent purposes.
To piggyback on what Rudelord Rudelord said above; if you are against the Patriot Act, or have any reservations about it, you should be against "red flag" laws as well.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
We may have to and voters are leaning towards that. We aren't doing fine. I don't want my kid to have to go through active shooter drills. Enough.
First, 2nd amendment.

Second, there are hundreds of millions of guns in the US. Even a gun confiscation program so thorough [door to door house searches] wouldn't even get half of them and would trigger a civil war.

And there would still be hundreds of millions of guns in the US.

Literally banning guns tomorrow would not do a damn thing. We need to evaluate root causes and develop solutions that would actually work [train and arm volunteer teachers, etc] instead of pretend 'gun control' can solve mental illness.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805

The news you never hear. 5 men attack woman, she is able to defend herself... with a gun.

All of you who want us defenseless would have this woman robbed, beaten, raped, or killed in your pursuit of 'ending violence'.
 

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
6,148
2,910
670
Canada

The news you never hear. 5 men attack woman, she is able to defend herself... with a gun.

All of you who want us defenseless would have this woman robbed, beaten, raped, or killed in your pursuit of 'ending violence'.
How many more justice impacted people are going to get shot by black white supremacists "defending" themselves. The US needs sensible gun laws ASAP.
 

CeroFrio996

Member
Jun 20, 2019
290
174
355
We need to evaluate root causes and develop solutions that would actually work [train and arm volunteer teachers, etc] instead of pretend 'gun control' can solve mental illness.
Why is the solution to gun violence always more guns?

We have a staggering amount of guns in this country already, increasing that only makes guns more accessible to criminals.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
14,102
26,393
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Why is the solution to gun violence always more guns?

We have a staggering amount of guns in this country already, increasing that only makes guns more accessible to criminals.
If you believe the world is violent, buy a gun.

Why is the solution to being a bad driver practicing your driving skills? We wouldn't take drivers off the road to compensate for your poor driving.

Why is the solution to not having enough money obtaining a higher-paying job? We wouldn't take money away from better-paid people to compensate for your... Oh wait.

Why is the solution to not knowing a topic reading about the topic and learning more? We wouldn't lower the standard of education to make sure no one is left behinds... oh wait.

Ultimately, the dividing line is not between people who are pro-gun and anti-gun. The dividing line is between people who take personal responsibility for the things they believe are serious, and those that don't. If you believe law enforcement will protect you and always acts fairly, by all means don't buy a gun. If you believe laws and threat of prison eliminate assaults and break-ins, by all means don't buy a gun. It's on your head either way.
 

TheGreatYosh

Member
Jul 19, 2018
1,618
1,403
545
People playing these word games with lefty gun grabbers are doing themselves a disservice. They know they're bullshitting us when they talk about 'assault weapons' . We are only allowed to have semi-automatic versions of these rifles as is. That is an infringement on the 2nd amendment already. Stop treating them like they are anything more than disingenuous.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
24,263
24,773
1,075
I remember in the late 80s early 90s they warned you not to travel to Miami because tourists were getting mugged leaving the airport and murdered, as well as local crime.

Then they scrambled quickly to become ‘will issue’ as well as stand your ground. Read reports violent crime dropped as much as 80% within the first year alone.

Granny all of a sudden becomes a second guess target for crime if she might be packing that Four Five.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
799
788
360
I remember in the late 80s early 90s they warned you not to travel to Miami because tourists were getting mugged leaving the airport and murdered, as well as local crime.

Then they scrambled quickly to become ‘will issue’ as well as stand your ground. Read reports violent crime dropped as much as 80% within the first year alone.

Granny all of a sudden becomes a second guess target for crime if she might be packing that Four Five.
It probably had a lag-time due to all the dumb motherfuckers robbing people finally encountering their first armed target and getting swiss-cheesed. No more dumb motherfucker robbing people, no more problem.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
I remember in the late 80s early 90s they warned you not to travel to Miami because tourists were getting mugged leaving the airport and murdered, as well as local crime.

Then they scrambled quickly to become ‘will issue’ as well as stand your ground. Read reports violent crime dropped as much as 80% within the first year alone.

Granny all of a sudden becomes a second guess target for crime if she might be packing that Four Five.

 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
I remember in the late 80s early 90s they warned you not to travel to Miami because tourists were getting mugged leaving the airport and murdered, as well as local crime.

Then they scrambled quickly to become ‘will issue’ as well as stand your ground. Read reports violent crime dropped as much as 80% within the first year alone.

Granny all of a sudden becomes a second guess target for crime if she might be packing that Four Five.

61 year old vs, 4 armed home invaders.

In our world, the 2 deaths get counted as 'gun homicides', and the event probably even gets counted as a 'mass shooting' by some.

In the real world, a 61 year old man was able to defend himself and his home against 4 armed, masked [one as Jason] intruders and the world is short 2 very bad people.

A couple days ago, a Houston woman defended herself against 5 men. In our world, that gets counted as gun violence in statistics.

If these old man and this woman were not allowed to arm themselves, the old guy would be subject to home invasion, beaten and robbed and likely killed. The woman would have been robbed, beaten, kidnapped, raped, or killed.


These events aren't rare. But our media buries these stories, and only amplifies bad guys with weapons killing people. And worse, they use the defense events to bolster gun violence statistics, Being able to defend yourself in these situations is a right.

If the media reported this all evenly, more people would be capable of defending themselves and violence would drop.
 

daveonezero

Member
Nov 19, 2018
554
340
295
No they are not rare. Not to mention suicide is always put into gun violence stats.

All other violent crimes with other weapons has decreased year over year in the USA iirc.

Despite what “ some Americans”, media and government claim.


Meanwhile police violence increases.

 
Last edited:

ViceUniverse

Member
Mar 12, 2019
373
135
195

61 year old vs, 4 armed home invaders.

In our world, the 2 deaths get counted as 'gun homicides', and the event probably even gets counted as a 'mass shooting' by some.

In the real world, a 61 year old man was able to defend himself and his home against 4 armed, masked [one as Jason] intruders and the world is short 2 very bad people.

A couple days ago, a Houston woman defended herself against 5 men. In our world, that gets counted as gun violence in statistics.

If these old man and this woman were not allowed to arm themselves, the old guy would be subject to home invasion, beaten and robbed and likely killed. The woman would have been robbed, beaten, kidnapped, raped, or killed.


These events aren't rare. But our media buries these stories, and only amplifies bad guys with weapons killing people. And worse, they use the defense events to bolster gun violence statistics, Being able to defend yourself in these situations is a right.

If the media reported this all evenly, more people would be capable of defending themselves and violence would drop.
True but I also want to note that more guns = more accidents. These no shortage of stories about family members accidentally shooting other family members because they thought that there were an intruder, or any other types of accidents. But neither of these occurrences take away from having more anti-mass shootings regulation. We can do it without freely putting guns in the wrong people's hands.
 
Last edited:

azz0r

Member
May 24, 2005
524
394
1,375
forums.wuggawoo.co.uk
Near impossible with a huge amount of debt also; https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-05/us-shootings-gun-buy-back/11383084

So far, gun buybacks in the United States have been a community-based, grassroots endeavour with limited impact. Their feasibility on a state or nationwide scale is unclear.

Cost alone may be a prohibiting factor. Assuming a $50-per-firearm incentive, reducing the US gun stock by 1 per cent would cost $196.5 million. Inevitably, only some of the guns purchased would have been used in future crimes.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
True but I also want to note that more guns = more accidents. These no shortage of stories about family members accidentally shooting other family members because they thought that there were an intruder, or any other types of accidents. But neither of these occurrences take away from having more anti-mass shootings regulation. We can do it without freely putting guns in the wrong people's hands.

We already have more guns than people and there are only about 400 - 600 accidental gun deaths a year. [I'd guess that some of those are likely polite suicides, just like some 'accidental ODs', but whatever].

I would argue more guns will not necessarily equal more accidents. The stats seem pretty constant [actually if anything they seem to be trending down year over year, despite more guns and more people].

But even so, just digging into accident statistics shows gun accidents are pretty rare, all things considered.

I mean, we're talking 40k plus in car/transport accidents. ODs deaths are also in the tens of thousands.

Slightly more people die per year from slipping and falling [same level, ie, no stairs].
More people die from being electrocuted. From drowning. Heck, we get similar [just slightly lower] numbers to guns even if we limit drowning to just bathtub drownings. We get hundreds of deaths per year for 'accidental strangulation in bed'. Ladders seem to be fairly equivalent to guns as well [falling in general is very high].

I mean, sure it is sad anyone dies accidentally. Gun deaths included, obviously. And gun safety and training should be a thing - hell, i'd love if gun training and safety was taught in school. But just by the numbers, we'd save more lives teaching people how to properly plug things in.

And i realize that sounds callous, but i say it because we need to learn to actually look at data. Sure, several hundred die by guns accidentally... and the media uses this to put the fear in us, but they don't mention your bathtub, your prescription drugs, your car, sharp objects, and even ladders may be more dangerous. And that perspective is important.

The risk of accidental death by ladder exists, but the value of the tool outweighs the risk. The same goes for guns.

[Numbers all sourced from cdc as well as articles based on cdc data].

Here's a particularly easy to look at list from 2000 from the National Safety Council, but i also referenced a pile of more current articles and references to look at trends.

 
Last edited:

ViceUniverse

Member
Mar 12, 2019
373
135
195
We already have more guns than people and there are only about 400 - 600 accidental gun deaths a year. [I'd guess that some of those are likely polite suicides, just like some 'accidental ODs', but whatever].

I would argue more guns will not necessarily equal more accidents. The stats seem pretty constant [actually if anything they seem to be trending down year over year, despite more guns and more people].

But even so, just digging into accident statistics shows gun accidents are pretty rare, all things considered.

I mean, we're talking 40k plus in car/transport accidents. ODs deaths are also in the tens of thousands.

Slightly more people die per year from slipping and falling [same level, ie, no stairs].
More people die from being electrocuted. From drowning. Heck, we get similar [just slightly lower] numbers to guns even if we limit drowning to just bathtub drownings. We get hundreds of deaths per year for 'accidental strangulation in bed'. Ladders seem to be fairly equivalent to guns as well [falling in general is very high].

I mean, sure it is sad anyone dies accidentally. Gun deaths included, obviously. And gun safety and training should be a thing - hell, i'd love if gun training and safety was taught in school. But just by the numbers, we'd save more lives teaching people how to properly plug things in.

And i realize that sounds callous, but i say it because we need to learn to actually look at data. Sure, several hundred die by guns accidentally... and the media uses this to put the fear in us, but they don't mention your bathtub, your prescription drugs, your car, sharp objects, and even ladders may be more dangerous. And that perspective is important.

The risk of accidental death by ladder exists, but the value of the tool outweighs the risk. The same goes for guns.

Guns get their own standards tailored to their characteristics. It's not about cars or prescription drugs, and whatever characteristics they have. Guns are fundamentally different.

I don't think gun safety in school is necessary, but what is a good idea as you mentioned are emphasis on demonstrated gun safety and storage education should you choose to own one.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
14,102
26,393
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
It's rather telling when the accident rate (and overall death rate) for a tool designed to kill someone at a distance is a fraction of deaths caused by many benign technologies (like electricity and automobiles) that are not designed to kill people. It would imply that guns are handled with proper safety and care, relatively speaking.
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: autoduelist

ViceUniverse

Member
Mar 12, 2019
373
135
195
It's rather telling when the accident rate (and overall death rate) for a tool designed to kill someone at a distance is a fraction of deaths caused by many benign technologies (like electricity and automobiles) that are not designed to kill people.
It doesn't mean anything special.

It would imply that guns are handled with proper safety and care, relatively speaking.
Indeed, but it should be more safe. They should be better kept out of the hands of gangsters, and those willing to do mass killings.

With the accidents people just need better awareness, you can't really do much about that except instill common sense.
 
Last edited:

Lamel

Member
Nov 2, 2009
11,505
211
775
It's rather telling when the accident rate (and overall death rate) for a tool designed to kill someone at a distance is a fraction of deaths caused by many benign technologies (like electricity and automobiles) that are not designed to kill people. It would imply that guns are handled with proper safety and care, relatively speaking.
Is this surprising to you? One category is used far more. And far more useful to boot.

Equating healthcare with gun control. Gun nuts continue to astound.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Oner

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
14,102
26,393
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
It doesn't mean anything special.
It's not meaningful that a tool designed to kill someone and which outnumbers vehicles by ~140 million units still has a significantly lower death rate in comparison? Okay.

Is this surprising to you? One category is used far more. And far more useful to boot.
One would think that the number of accidents and deaths caused by a tool that is designed to cause deaths would be rather high.

The fact that gun deaths rank lower than electrocutions and drowning (among many other causes of death) indicates that we are already handling guns with more caution than media heads and certain politicians would like you to believe.

If you have alternative statistics, I'm all ears.
 

ViceUniverse

Member
Mar 12, 2019
373
135
195
It's not meaningful that a tool designed to kill someone and which outnumbers vehicles by ~140 million units still has a significantly lower death rate in comparison? Okay.


One would think that the number of accidents and deaths caused by a tool that is designed to cause deaths would be rather high.

The fact that gun deaths rank lower than electrocutions and drowning (among many other causes of death) indicates that we are already handling guns with more caution than media heads and certain politicians would like you to believe.

If you have alternative statistics, I'm all ears.
Just think for a minute.

How many people use cars daily? The average (not median) American spends 101 hours driving. Okay so truckers skew statistics.

The point is more people drive, and spend time driving daily than people who handle guns and spend time handling them daily.

And it's not even close for comparison.

But even that is a bad comparison for one simple reason, the nature of the casualities are completely different. Gun deaths are almost always on purpose, while cars are almost alwaya unintentional. Guns don't shoot with the safety on, cars are much more involved. And that's just the beginning of their differences.

So when we're talking about guns, we are actually talking about guns. Only guns. We compare gun stats to gun stats

When we talk about cars, we don't talk about prescription drugs. We compare car stats to car stats. That's how we measure safety.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lamel

Durask

Member
Feb 6, 2012
1,516
290
595
Is this surprising to you? One category is used far more. And far more useful to boot.



Equating healthcare with gun control. Gun nuts continue to astound.
Well, it's you folks who keep insisting on naming guns a public health issue, so who is equating healthcare with gun control? :messenger_sunglasses:
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Oner

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
2,671
1,558
1,035
Every year we have extensive hunts for large game like Elk and Deer, with thousands of of hunters armed with high powered long arms, yet no mass shootings. Going by the narrative that "more guns equals more shootings", how do how do gun control advocates reconcile that low iq talking point with that fact?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
14,102
26,393
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Just think for a minute.

How many people use cars daily? The average (not median) American spends 101 hours driving. Okay so truckers skew statistics.

The point is more people drive, and spend time driving daily than people who handle guns and spend time handling them daily.

And it's not even close for comparison.
Not all time spent driving puts the driver in a life-threatening situation, whereas handling a loaded gun puts the handler within a few seconds of potentially ending a life. Driving and guns are both very similar in that we rely on society to adhere to common rules and laws to reduce the risks of operating their respective devices. We add physical barriers to the sides of roads to protect people from veering off. These barriers will never ever affect people who follow the rules of the road yet we add them anyway. We add seat-belts and traction-control and rear-view mirrors and even backup cameras to ensure that the operator can use the device with as little risk for injury as possible.

What we don't do is implement red flag laws for drivers. The near-impossibility of a concerned family member taking away an elderly driver's license has become a trope at this point. We also don't buy back cars in areas with high traffic accidents. We don't pour millions into ad campaigns vilifying car-owners, and politicians don't campaign on the idea of making "safer streets" (well, at least not from cars).

But even that is a bad comparison for one simple reason, the nature of the casualities are completely different. Gun deaths are almost always on purpose, while cars are almost alwaya unintentional. Guns don't shoot with the safety on, cars are much more involved. And that's just the beginning of their differences.
The yearly total of gun homicides (which includes illegal guns, of course) and drunk driving deaths are roughly equal. Hard to say that gun deaths are "almost always on purpose but cars are almost always unintentional" in light of those statistics.

So when we're talking about guns, we are actually talking about guns. Only guns. We compare gun stats to gun stats

When we talk about cars, we don't talk about prescription drugs. We compare car stats to car stats. That's how we measure safety.
You're not talking about guns, either. I never see mention of improvement to gun designs to make them safer. I never see mention of pushing more guns so that more people are exposed to the potential dangers of the device. It's only about restricting access to guns, as if that will eliminate the underlying behavior (violence).

Like cars, like electricity, like large bodies of water, we do not eliminate something just because a person can die from it. The dangers introduced by technology isn't a new idea, but a very very old one, and politicians have always sought to go after the technology, often as an excuse to oppress a populace. Hey, that's quite literally why the USA included the 2nd amendment in our constitution, because a government was attempting to do that to us after it had done it to several of its other territories.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Oner

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
Equating healthcare with gun control. Gun nuts continue to astound.
You can't even handle two sentences without being overtly condescending while showing complete ignorance of the difference between rights and privileges while at the same time conflating healthcare and a voluntary, non-passive optional act. Not to mention, calling abortion 'healthcare' is as intellectually honest as calling soldiers in a warzone 'peace keepers'.
 
Last edited:

ViceUniverse

Member
Mar 12, 2019
373
135
195
Not all time spent driving puts the driver in a life-threatening situation, whereas handling a loaded gun puts the handler within a few seconds of potentially ending a life. Driving and guns are both very similar in that we rely on society to adhere to common rules and laws to reduce the risks of operating their respective devices. We add physical barriers to the sides of roads to protect people from veering off. These barriers will never ever affect people who follow the rules of the road yet we add them anyway. We add seat-belts and traction-control and rear-view mirrors and even backup cameras to ensure that the operator can use the device with as little risk for injury as possible.

What we don't do is implement red flag laws for drivers. The near-impossibility of a concerned family member taking away an elderly driver's license has become a trope at this point. We also don't buy back cars in areas with high traffic accidents. We don't pour millions into ad campaigns vilifying car-owners, and politicians don't campaign on the idea of making "safer streets" (well, at least not from cars).
So you've identified that guns and cars have very different regulations because they are incredibly different. Good!

The yearly total of gun homicides (which includes illegal guns, of course) and drunk driving deaths are roughly equal. Hard to say that gun deaths are "almost always on purpose but cars are almost always unintentional" in light of those statistics.
Nice non-conclusive point here.

You're not talking about guns, either. I never see mention of improvement to gun designs to make them safer.
That's all good too.

I never see mention of pushing more guns so that more people are exposed to the potential dangers of the device.
Making sure that gun owners/users are responsible towards themselves and others, and better keeping them out of the hands of criminals and would-be mass murderers is something that we should expect to improve upon.

It's only about restricting access to guns, as if that will eliminate the underlying behavior (violence).
Restriction is a part of better regulation too.
 
Last edited:

Lamel

Member
Nov 2, 2009
11,505
211
775
You can't even handle two sentences without being overtly condescending while showing complete ignorance of the difference between rights and privileges while at the same time conflating healthcare and a voluntary, non-passive optional act. Not to mention, calling abortion 'healthcare' is as intellectually honest as calling soldiers in a warzone 'peace keepers'.
Abortion is explicitly healthcare. If we can't agree on that basic concept then we are too far apart to even bother finding middle ground.

Furthermore, I do believe healthcare is a human right. So if we disagree there, again, see above.