I imagine that the real statistics you are referencing are those that indicate that car accidents cause more deaths than guns cause in total. Is that what you mean?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
US gun debate: Obama unveils gun control proposals
- Thread starter Dead Man
- Start date
- Status
Dude Abides
Banned
I think you're thinking of assault rifle
Mr.Squirrel
Tom
Not really what? There are more accidental car deaths in this country, but that doesn't change how lethal owning a firearm is. Like I said, in the state of Georgia where I live, there is less paperwork required to own an assault rifle with as much ammo as I want (even armor piercing hollow tips) than there is to get a learners permit. I can go to any gun show or flea market, buy whatever guns I want, and never have to even show ID.
That's the point, it's not even an assault weapon. It's changing the name of something so people like this make the same correlation:
The mission is successful.
Also, hollow points don't pierce armor. The whole point is that they rapidly expand and *dont* penetrate.
*edit*
Throwing some information your way. There are 888 guns per 1000 US Citizens. There are 882 cars per 1000 US citizens.
Gun deaths per year were 31,328, ~65% of which were suicides. So lets be generous and say there are 15,000 gun related deaths not a result of suicide.
By comparison, there were 33,975 car related deaths. Let's be super super generous and say that 28,000 of those were someone who was killed by the fault of another, rather than someone who died of their own mistake/accident/accord.
You're looking at nearly double the rate of deaths. That's not trivial.
Now, if we were to look at the height of either, that was 37K gun deaths (sans ~60 percent of suicides is again about 15K), compared to auto deaths which was 57K.
I'm not saying that regulation shouldn't exist, as I said above, I'd like to see licensing similar to concealed carry permits for *all* firearms. But sometimes you just need to put things in perspective.
I'd argue you're average, mentally ill nutcase can't reload like that.
Dude Abides
Banned
No, assault weapons are semi-automatic. Assault rifles are automatic. They are different terms. That people get confused about it doesn't mean the terms aren't different.
We don't need no stinking gun control laws, we need prayer.
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...s-prayer-not-legislation-to-fight-4199136.php
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...s-prayer-not-legislation-to-fight-4199136.php
TheKaeptain
Banned
He didn't even check if the chamber was clear. Bad form.
Search youtube for ispc, uspsa, or idpa and you'll see a bunch of ordinary americans (maybe a nutcase or two but since they haven't shot anyone else yet, maybe not) actively reloading during shooting sports events. Search for the above with revolver and you'll see people doing it with speed loaders
Search for 3 gun on youtube and you'll see people reloading shotguns during shooting sports events. Search for WWII 3 gun and you'll see people actively reloading shotguns, 1911s, and M1 garands under time constraints during the event.
By the way, the above stuff is the most fun you will have with a gun. It's so much fun.
Went to Wikipedia, looks like our discussion here is perfectly mirrored there.
You're right on the money there. But...
Is what I'd agree with.
So, yes, you are right. But I disagree with that moniker in the first place. I think I'll make that more clear in the future to be more accurate.
Wouldn't people competing in shooting events be the kind of people who would practice that kind of thing? And reloading during a controlled sporting event can't be comparable to reloading during a shootout, where nerves, adrenaline rushes, etc. can affect the performance?
I just don't think it's a fair comparison.
I don't have any trouble keeping that in mind.
In 2010,
Motor Vehicle Accidents accounted for 35,332 deaths.
Gun deaths of any kind: 30,470
This would be broken down into:
Suicide by use of firearms: 19,392
Homicide by use of firearms: 11,078 (this number includes only intentional homicides and not legal intervention/justifiable homicide)
Homicides by all other means: 5,181
Intentional vehicular homicide is a very inconvenient statistic. It is not a significant enough percent of the total number of deaths to be broken down on the CDC's numbers for recent years that I can find, nor the DOJ's review of homicides. It is folded into the 5,181 deaths above, but according to the DOJ's breakdown on methods of homicide, it is less common than, besides guns, knives/cutting/stabbing instruments, blunt objects, strangulation or other unarmed homicide, and arson.
These statistics do very little to support your implication about why the onus for more stringent licensing should fall on cars rather than guns.
Secondly, your premise is flawed. The entire social contract revolving around licensing people to drive cars is based on the idea that the benefits of any given individual being able to drive a car represent the manifold interests of society at large, and as such outweigh the risks involved in driving to a sufficient degree to license individuals who can pass a threshold of aptitude. Being able to drive affords someone more economic opportunities both in terms of purchasing ability and employment, and expands the reach of goods and services for producers as well, among myriad other potential benefits. The system is predicated on an overwhelming majority of licensees not using their cars as weapons. Misuse of cars, intentional or accidental, is still heavily penalized, and drunk driving appends an entire additional layer of precaution onto our statewide laws regarding their operation.
In contrast, guns are weapons. Regardless of their design, function, or intended use case, to operate a gun in the appropriate fashion is to discharge a ranged weapon. While the availability of firearms may be in the best interests of society at large, the ability of any given individual to obtain one are in the interests primarily of only the individual possessor, for personal self-defense or one of a variety of hobbies, or a family unit (home protection).
With regard to other classes of weapons: many possessing greater firepower than typical civilian firearms are already banned outright, such as advanced military weaponry, or require additional procedures to legally posses almost everywhere, such as most rifles with selective-fire capability; on the other hand, many classes of weapons are subject to little to no regulation at all, which has done little harm to society as their use in homicide is demonstrably limited.
I believe there is a strong case to be made for state-run licensing requirements for gun possession of a roughly equivalent standard to that of the DMV. I think that arguments in opposition to this tend to stem directly from the perception of such licensing representing a threat to the intended or perceived purpose of the Second Amendment; this immediately causes the discussion to focus on esoteric and philosophical grounds and tends to shut the conversation down after a few rounds.
This is incredibly disingenuous and you should reconsider.
There were 606 accidental deaths as a result of the discharge of firearms in the year my numbers are from. None of those are included in the 30,470.
Just as an aside, it's not a good idea to do this- "be generous"- when you have the statistics available which you obviously do (though you pulled them from another year than I did).
Well, of course they would practice. I have a suspicion that mass shooters practice. Also mass shooting events aren't shootouts, they are one murderer stalking multiple unarmed victims. I don't think you can be a mass shooter unless you think of your victims as targets instead of human beings.
Then again I just don't get why someone does that. I suppose that makes me not crazy so I can't really explain how or why they do what they do or how they prepare for it.
1) I agree 100%. I do think there is some legal (not pragmatic) legitimacy to the fact that gun ownership is a right while being able to drive is a privilege.
2) I'd tend to want to drop suicides from the statistics, because as someone who works in mental health care (specifically closely with an ECT unit), guns are just handy. People will do it with whatever they have available. I can see a case for a portion of those possibly not existing if it weren't for widespread ownership, however.
In either case, I don't think it's very useful to try and examine gun homicides vs. vehicular homicides. Ultimately, whether by accident or purpose, killing another person has the same net effect on society. My point is that cars are (per capita) more deadly than guns, which is empirically true.
*edit for grammar. Also, I don't have the direct statistical breakdown handy, and if you have a link, I would very much appreciate it.
I don't really have a dog in this fight - but the idea that you can find someone on YouTube, at a shooting competition, or a shooting instructor, reloading in 2.5 seconds doesn't seem like a good reason to not limit clip size.
Reload speed is only one consideration - the other being the amount of clips you'd need to equal a larger capacity magazine. For example, a 30 round clip would require 6 x 5 round clips to equal the same amount of ammunition. Having 6 clips accessible that quickly, especially in a mass shooting, where they would probably need to conceal the clips before getting into position doesn't seem all that feasible. And, at 2.5 seconds per reload, there would be 15 seconds of downtime vs no downtime on the 30 round clip (and that's assuming each reload was performed flawlessly).
Reload speed is only one consideration - the other being the amount of clips you'd need to equal a larger capacity magazine. For example, a 30 round clip would require 6 x 5 round clips to equal the same amount of ammunition. Having 6 clips accessible that quickly, especially in a mass shooting, where they would probably need to conceal the clips before getting into position doesn't seem all that feasible. And, at 2.5 seconds per reload, there would be 15 seconds of downtime vs no downtime on the 30 round clip (and that's assuming each reload was performed flawlessly).
And my point was that even though cars are slightly more deadly per capita than guns, it's not very useful to try and examine gun homicides vs. intentional vehicular homicides. But doing so would be the absolute only reason to bring cars up in this discussion, and I thought you were the one to bring up licensing. Sorry if I didn't follow the thread back far enough.
edit: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm from here you can get to most of the relevant stuff in a couple clicks- the Final Death totals PDF is the most relevant/easily digestible
There's also the simple matter of the number of gun owners vs car drivers.
I was attempting (with really sloppy math) to examine one person killing another person with both, not homicides vs. homicides.
*edit*
I might be in the wrong here, but are motor vehicle accidents that causes another person to die considered vehicular homicide? I was of the assumption that if it were an accident, this would not be the case.
*edit*
I might be in the wrong here, but are motor vehicle accidents that causes another person to die considered vehicular homicide? I was of the assumption that if it were an accident, this would not be the case.
Arguing that a magazine limit wouldn't have prevented some prior massacre is pointless. We're trying to prevent more and worse massacres going forward. It should be clear to anyone who isn't a complete idiot that large magazines and semi auto rifles make it easier to kill large numbers of people. This isn't rocket science.
It's an honest mistake. Vehicular homicide and vehicular manslaughter are INCREDIBLY complex terms which diverge from the traditional conceptions of manslaughter and murder considerably:
http://www.duifoundation.org/drunkdriving/accidents/vehicularhomocide/
(Hopefully) to avoid confusion, the CDC labels the 30,000+ deaths you're referring to in its fact sheets as "Motor Vehicle Accidents."
Intentional homicide through the use of a car is exceedingly rare.
Virginia tech shooter had 19 magazines (17 on him and 2 in the guns)
That makes sense.
Do you get what I was trying to convey though? I'm not great with stats outside of tech stuff where I've been taught specific metrics. The one I was pushing for is 'Frequency of causing death (by accident or on purpose) to another human with guns vs. cars'.
It should be clear to anyone that isn't an idiot that the tactical advantage of anyone with multiple multishot firearms regardless of how it is loaded, cocked, or fired will have a tactical advantage over unarmed, untrained targets. It is not worth banning and affecting so many law abiding individuals for something that hasn't saved a single life in any active shooter scenario that we know of. Not during the last AWB that limited magazine capacity to 10 rounds, not now, not ever.
It's pointless and dumb legislation that only serves to get a foot in the door of further restrictions on firearms. Any idiot should see that.
Pristine_Condition
Member
You don't have to be a race shooter or instructor to become adept at changing magazines quickly. I'll bet it's a skill any reasonably coordinated teen or adult could pick up in about an hour of practice.
Seems like you're saying you can't expect a mass-shooter to plan and train for his killing spree (even though we've seen this to be the case) enough to become proficient at changing magazines, while at the same time ignoring the fact that the millions of existing high-capacity magazines on the market will still be there.
To your second argument, that's not really an issue. They already make thin, breathable shooting vests which can hold rows of magazines in individual pockets. This could easily be concealed under a jacket. Or the shooter could do what I do when I go to the range, I have an old Tamrac camera bag which I don't use for photography anymore, and I now use as my range bag. It's designed for being able to quickly access a camera while moving. It hugs the hip like an old-school fanny pack, and I've got the configurable padded "slots" in the bag configured so it can hold my two 1911-style .45s and 12 (8 rnd.) magazines. Non-descript bags of this type, and others, are readily available all over the place. Another guy that I see at the range frequently uses a carpenter's belt bag, with a bunch of slots, in a similar manner.
I get that but my point was that it's irrelevant to this discussion if you meant it genuinely, and disingenuous if you meant that the stats supported the notion that increased gun regulation is a bad idea.
"By accident or on purpose" is a fairly crucial phrase because the ratios are basically reversed; there were 606 accidental deaths related to firearms in 2010 (whether the accident killed the person with the gun or someone else). That would be the appropriate number to compare to Motor Vehicle Accident deaths because they are all the result of an unintentional act on the part of the shooter or driver.
The 30,470 gun deaths of any kind I cited were all the result of intentional action (whether the outcome was that the person committed suicide or killed one or more others). That figure excludes legal intervention and accidental death.
That may be true today but the .223 cartridge was never meant for hunting wild game, only humans. Just cause some use it for hunting today does not change it's history.
I was using it, as the person I was responding to had a semi-flippant reference to drivers licenses while no such thing is required for firearms. My point in bringing that up is to help remind people how freaking serious it is to be driving a multiple ton object at high speeds, and why that would need to be licensed. It is, in fact, more detrimental to other people than firearms on an aggregate and per-capita basis.
So were most of the weapons that we use to kill animals. What's your point?
My point is, just cause it isn't select fire doesn't make it less lethal than it's military counterpart. What is the difference in real world function, once you take into consideration that soldiers are train to use their Assault Rifles in semi-automatic mode to conserve ammo and improve accuracy?
Even with your flawed point, the proper comparison would be gun owners to car owners. Those 260 million cars are used by 210 million licensed drivers in the US. VPC puts gun ownership at 1 in 5 per population. That would be around 60+ million gun owners in the U.S.
None of this matters, as a car is pretty much a required tool in daily life for a good portion of the U.S. and a gun isn't anymore.
Pristine_Condition
Member
Huh?
The .30-06 and the .308 were all "military" rounds too, if you want to take that strange path. It doesn't mean anything.
To your very interesting yarn about the history of the .223 though...actually, the .223 has MORE of a hunting heritage than either of those aforementioned very common hunting rounds in it's development. The .223 was a direct scale-up from the popular .222 Remington varmint-hunting round when it was developed, and originally, Armalite designers Jim Sullivan and Bob Fremont used the .222 round in their prototypes for the AR-10, (the precursor to the AR-15) after the original .308 was rejected for being too much cartridge.
The .223 has virtually identical ballistics as the similarly-developed .222 Remington magnum round, but the .223 has supplanted the original .222 and the .222 magnum as the most-popular centerfire varmint round in the US for hunters, and led to those .222 rounds being rare today.
So, the .223 was directly developed from a civilian varmint-hunting round, and has directly replaced that round in the civilian market, after being touched up and improved for a military purpose. Big freaking deal. It's just the natural cycle of R&D.
I'm not really sure what your point is. We have tons of civilian products today that were either improved through military adoption, or were entirely military when first invented, but became civilian use consumer products later.
ThisWreckage
Banned
I don't have any solutions. My bet is that you don't either. Our president doesn't either. This is a complex problem that is deeply embedded in our culture and it is a mental health issue (which is always a tricky problem). The fact is that a vast majority of gun deaths due were committed with handguns and shotguns. I understand the regulations, but that doesn't mean that they're going to be effective.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Assuming a democrat wins in 2016 though. Given the NRA's focus on banning any discussion/research on guns, I would imagine the next republican president would block Obama's order. Still I agree that this is a major move, and one that will ensure that even if no legislation is passed a critical step will have been made.
Yes that's why I said earlier:
Rule #1 of Critical Thinking is to not take statistics at face value, because it's useless.
Mammoth Jones
Member
It's extremely quick to reload a mag. Especially if you have a bolt release/catch on the gun.
GungHo
Single-handedly caused Exxon-Mobil to sue FOX, start World War 3
Depends on how they're coupled. Individually, some measures may have more life than others, like background checks or mental health considerations. If it's all one big package like the old AWB, I doubt they'll succeed, simply because it will either be fought by an aggregation* of lobbies or be avoided because lawmakers will start adding poison pills.
* I think a lot of folks are forgetting that the people who might fight some considerations may not be the same people who would fight others... i.e. a magazine capacity limit might just piss off the NRA, but mental health provisions or tracking databases may see fights from civil liberties and privacy advocates.
Says the suburban/city dweller.
I'd have lost my Border Collie if it weren't for my gun ownership. She was only a year at the time. Many of my friends have lost goats, cows, chickens and even a horse to coyotes, mountain lions, and other predators. Losing a few cows can mean the difference between going bankrupt or not.
Beyond practical applications, I know this isn't something that many agree with but I'll try to put it out there in a way that can at least be understood if not empathized with.
Owning a firearm that can kill people is a source of deep ingrained belief that I am free. It could be the difference between someone who is born and raised in the West, where it's even more recent than the relatively nascent nation state we live in. But in a similar fashion to having a garden, property, livestock, horses, automobiles, it is a part of knowing that at least on some level, I am my own king. In addition to that, I know that in my community, we can all look out for each other and provide some basic level of help and care no matter what.
I won't appeal to the 'Wolverine', or 'defending against tyranny' attitude, as I know how ridiculous it sounds. There is truth to it though, similar in the way that our prolonged engagement in Afghanistan is the result of a decentralized resistance that is, in relation to the US, very limited in arms.
Civilizations rise and fall. There's no empirical basis to have faith in a governmental system over a prolonged period of time. Will it happen in our life? Probably not. In our children's lives? Probably not. But at some point, things will be very different than they are today. When things change dramatically, there is always a period of (pejorative) anarchy. Look no further than Argentina during their recent economic collapse. This was in modern times in a relatively developed nation state.
One of the truths that we can verify in history is that every government expands its power at the expense of its citizens over a given period. It doesn't matter if the ultimate goal is to better protect and ensure a higher quality of life, it happens. Enter the slippery slope argument.
I hope to the flying spaghetti monster that this situation never comes to pass, but you don't plan for sunny days, you plan for rainy days. I don't want to be a part of eliminating that freedom and ability to protect one's self, family, and community either now nor in the future.
"But is that worth mass shootings like we've seen recently?"
Fuck.
On a less serious note, as a socialist in a rural area, I am very concerned about the fact that people of a similar political bent are far less armed than those I disagree with.
I'm sorry but this whole thing is rubbing me the wrong way. These proposals are clearly meant to reduce mass shootings as, for example, the vast majority (~98%) of gun deaths in the US are from handguns and yet you see them going after assault weapons.
In 2012, in the US, we had less than 100 deaths due to mass shootings. About 350 people were struck by lightning. Mass shootings are trivial by any statistical analysis and now we are going to start spending lots of money and passing lots of laws that will likely do nothing to curb the phenomenon and certainly have very little impact on gun violence as a whole and we act like we are doing something that is common sense and addressing gun violence.
This is a farce of massive proportions and just shows how out of whack our priorities are. If we really want to curb gun violence completely different steps should be taken. The best solution IMO is to decriminalize drugs but that is a whole other issue.
I just can't stand these self righteous politicians standing up and acting like they did something good and they're thinking of the children when all they did was waste a bunch of money and not fix anything and people are now cheering them on for this.
In 2012, in the US, we had less than 100 deaths due to mass shootings. About 350 people were struck by lightning. Mass shootings are trivial by any statistical analysis and now we are going to start spending lots of money and passing lots of laws that will likely do nothing to curb the phenomenon and certainly have very little impact on gun violence as a whole and we act like we are doing something that is common sense and addressing gun violence.
This is a farce of massive proportions and just shows how out of whack our priorities are. If we really want to curb gun violence completely different steps should be taken. The best solution IMO is to decriminalize drugs but that is a whole other issue.
I just can't stand these self righteous politicians standing up and acting like they did something good and they're thinking of the children when all they did was waste a bunch of money and not fix anything and people are now cheering them on for this.
I don't live in what would be called suburbs or a city. I don't personally own livestock or firearms, but have neighbors that do. It is a beautiful representation of rural America, farms, dairies, personal livestock and a smattering of meth houses.
Don't selectively bold parts of a sentence and remove a qualifier. It is changing the context of what was said.
Whatever happened to your dog doesn't change the fact that a majority of the U.S. don't own or need guns, but they do own and need cars.
Don't selectively bold parts of a sentence and remove a qualifier. It is changing the context of what was said.
Whatever happened to your dog doesn't change the fact that a majority of the U.S. don't own or need guns, but they do own and need cars.
That got a chuckle as it rang very true.
Either way, a lot of people still do need firearms. So I don't really care that a lot of people don't, in the same way that I don't care that lots of people don't have gas burning stoves.
NathanMcMahon
Banned
Is there any particular reason why handguns are ignored?
Mammoth Jones
Member
They're not able to politically vilify them the way they can do semi-auto rifles. Despite being used for far more deaths.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
I agree with this post. This is an overreaction for sure. It's remiscent of what happened after 9/11. Everyone was worried about terrorists coming to get them even though the risk was infinitisimal. Looking for ways to tackle the causes of gang and drug violence would be the logical way to proceed if you really wanted to reduce gun violence in this country. But I think politicians already know that. Their agenda is something else.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
It isn't realistic to go after handguns. This proposal is realistic.
plagiarize
Banned
and anything they propose to address any other gun deaths will have people crying foul because 'that law wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook'. hell, I've already heard a lot of that. the chance of something passing that only effects mass shootings is much higher than the chance of something passing that would have had no impact on it. I'll take what tighter restrictions we can actually pass today, and go from there personally.
Let's find out if limited clip laws are pointless. I mean, if you all can reload super fast anyways why do you want bigger clips in the first place? Either they make it easier to shoot a whole lot of bullets in as quick a time as possible, or they don't. If extended clips don't make it easier, why do you need or want them?
Surely that's a perfectly fair question to ask.
- Status