Some facts about guns in the US

Another Payment to the Piper

No Responsibility, No Surprise
Another sacrifice to the altar of the Glorified G

This evening, the Mantua neighborhood of Philadelphia has one less resident.

Police believe the fatal shooting of an 11-year-old girl Saturday in Philadelphia occurred as children played with a loaded firearm inside a Mantua neighborhood home.

Investigators said a male friend of the victim’s mother arrived at the home and allegedly stashed a loaded gun on the top of the refrigerator.

At some point, the firearm was moved to the master bedroom, where it was left unsecured, according to authorities.

Police said the girl was in the bedroom with her mother and three other children: a 16-year-old, a 2-year-old and a child younger than 10.

When the mother left the room to use the bathroom, the children found the gun, according to investigators.

Police said that as the children played with the loaded, cocked firearm, the 2-year-old pointed the weapon at the 11-year-old girl.

The gun discharged shortly before 10 a.m. and the bullet struck her.

She was taken to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, but died about a half-hour later.

(Wigglesworth)​

The investigation continues.
____________________

Notes:

Wigglesworth, Alex. "Girl, 11, killed as kids play with gun". The Seattle Times. April 5, 2014. SeattleTimes.com. April 5, 2014. http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2023311383_phillygunxml.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And the beat goes on...

No surprise there, sadly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Has anybody noticed that as we continue to regulate, license and even restrict gun ownership the number of shootings increases not decreases. If gun control worked at all Chicago would be the safest place US, but it isn't. Why? Because criminals do not obey laws. They acquire their guns from sources that bypass all regulations and background checks. So in the end the very people you did not want to allow to have guns still have them.

I understand wanting to reduce violence in the world. I'd a laudable goal. Why choose a method that makes people more vulnerable?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

God Shed His Grace on Thee

True, but this is America, where things work a little differently.

For instance, the mere proposition of reducing gun violence is, technically, anathema. Consider our neighbor's question: "Why choose a method that makes people more vulnerable?"

This argument concedes the fact of growing violent crime and seeks no solutions to curb it. Rather, it is a reflection of what we hear coming from the NRA; America will only be safe when everyone is strapping on and nobody dares look at another person for fear of starting a gunfight.

The downside, though, is that people with guns don't seem to actually fear starting a gunfight. Then again, that's not necessarily a downside if you're looking at it from the perspective of an American gun owner.

Our society will only be secure when we are all so frightened of our shadows that we'll shoot the damn thing.

Anything less, and you're just making people more vulnerable. At least, I think that's how the argument goes; we can never get deeper than the surface, because asking gun owners to think is pretty much threatening them, and thus risking being shot.

 

Not true. The military-grade weapons are what is regulated and sure enough they constitute a fraction of the weapons used to commit crimes. Nearly all crimes involving a firearm are done with the unregulated weapons.

In any case you need to tell us which year the number of shootings went up. I just did a spot check and found this:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/cv12pr.cfm

Before you can claim that, you have to subtract all first-time convictions from the total. A person with a clean record can buy a gun across the street from the Piggly Wiggly they want to rob. If your theory were correct, there would be no first-time convictions, and presumably most of the rest would be given life for re-offending with a weapon. That means there would be no criminal left on the street with any gun. So something is wrong with that calculus.

They have the guns that are not regulated. Only a fraction of them had regulated guns.

As for the good folks who need protection, they're supposed to call 911 when they hear shots fired, and the cops take care of the artillery.

The "defensive gun use" argument is weak, even if you take weapons away from only the law-abiding people. Forget that all first-time offenders were, as far as the evidence shows, law abiding until they pulled the trigger. In any case the odds that a law abiding person will brandish or fire a weapon to prevent a crime is equal to x divided by 200,000,000 in which x is the statistic you pick which claims to know how many victims used a gun defensively. In the above government source I used, that number is 100,000. This means the odds that a gun is used defensively are %0.05. Compare this to the roughly 1.5% odds of dying in a car wreck, and it gives good reason for the NRA to apply that deep purse advocating for tougher laws to reduce collisions.

 

I do not understand the mindset of the average gun control advocate.

How can anyone be so afraid of their neighbor having a gun, but be absolutely fine with the police having them? I mean considering the amount of stress the average police officer suffers on a daily basis they are more likely to crack under pressure than your neighbor.

Why is it alright to give a select group of people, who are encouraged to think of the average citizen as potential criminals, the ability to be armed but strip that same ability from the average citizen?

Why is hard for the gun control advocate to understand that no matter what you do to remove guns from average citizen the criminals will still have the guns?

Why do they assume that every gun owner will suddenly be reduced to a paranoid bundle of nerves that shoots at the slightest provocation, but that somehow Police are immune to such transformations?

Why do they want a 110lb woman to have to go toe-to-toe with a 250lb man with nothing more protective than vomiting on themselves?

Why do they assume that every gun owner is just looking for an excuse to shoot someone?

Can any of you tell me why if I am a law abiding citizen why I shouldn't be trusted with a fully automatic weapon? Why are you afraid of me having one if I have never been a threat to you or yours?

Perhaps one of you can explain why someone should be punished for another's actions? After all would you accept the government taking you car because your neighbor drove his while intoxicated?

 

inyervention

True but the police force is a well regulated militia, whereas most gun owners only had occasion to shoot at a range, a rabbit, or a skunk. An armed personal confrontation is a whole different ballgame.

Because they usually are of high intelligence, go through rigorous training and situation analysis. It earns the title "officer of the law", and bestows a right to a neutral intervention between individuals. You know the ones that do not have an AR 47 behind every door..

Not true, for instance if a crime was committed with an un-registered handgun we'd know very early on if we were looking for some REAL DEADLY criminals or some unfortunate accident of careless gun handling. Simple registration. Just like your automobile.

That is an assumption without proof. As I understand it, officers get regular training in new updated methods, either psychologocally or technically.
And I am am one of the "they", even as I live in No Idaho and have several guns to protect myself against "wildlife", such as foxes, coyotes, wolfs, bears, each capable of tearing my habitat to shreds.

You want a 110 lbs woman to carry a 44 mag? That's about the only gun that'll stop a 250 lbs man intend on doing you harm. A .22 won't do.

There are some statistics that point that way , (especially when poverty goes up), but again that is pure supposition. Note these are the gun owners talkig points. It is fear that sells guns, not love.

Why do you feel the need to own a fully automatic assault rifle if I have never been a threat to you or yours?
We can ask why do you feel the need to have a fully automatic weapon if there is so little to fear of a few crimes committed by real criminals.

But no one is taking your gun if your neighbor has shot or killed anyone. Have you ever been punished for a crime you did not commit and/or found to be innocent of a crimnal act?

 

For balance, I don't understand the mindset of your average gun-protection advocate.

How can anyone feel safer carrying a device that, statistically, is more likely to injure or kill them than protect them? Is it that every gun owner thinks that they are the exception?

How can anyone think their 110 lb mentally impaired grandmother will be made safer with an object which, if mishandled, will kill her or other people in her area?

Why do gun control advocates think guns magically turn them into Rambo, capable of dispatching any evildoer immediately with no threat to others in the area?

Why do advocates think that bullets avoid innocent people and home in on only the people who should be shot?

Why do advocates think that the ability to own, carry and fire antiaircraft weapons makes any rational sense when it comes to self defense?

I think any sane, law-abiding adult in the US has a right to own weapons for personal defense and sport. That generally includes rifles, shotguns and handguns. Criminals, the insane and children do not have that right, and indeed we should make efforts to make sure the insane and criminals do not possess them, since at that point their potential for harm far outweighs their potential for good. In general I support laws that keep guns out of the hands of the insane and criminals, and I support laws that protect children from careless gun owners. I also support laws that keep military weapons (antiaircraft weapons etc) out of general circulation. In general I oppose laws that keep law-abiding citizens from obtaining weapons for self defense and hunting.

Sometimes a proposed law has both good and bad aspects to it. For example, a law that requires firearms safety training for anyone who purchases a gun would almost certainly improve gun safety, but will also hamper people who want to buy a gun. In that case it's probably a good tradeoff. A law that requires people to secure their guns at a range, and never allow the weapons to leave, would definitely improve safety, but would severely hamper people's ability to use them in self defense - so that's probably a bad tradeoff.

 

Here's a gun fact I think JamesR may have left out in the OP.

Many of us know a great deal of people who own guns, none of which have ever shot anyone or would ever consider shooting anyone. In fact, this is a conversation many gun owners have, would they use their guns if so enraged from some event in their lives other than defending themselves against someone wanting to kill them. It is these gun owners who are actually the ones who understand guns and the responsibility of owning them, far more than the person who has never owned them, but who is willing to go surfing through the internet picking up factoids about people who use guns from crime and violence, the small minority amongst responsible gun owners.

JamesR should actually take the time to go to a few gun clubs and talk with the folks who own guns rather than keeping his head in the sand.

 

Back on topic here, I had a thought while reading some of the posts and sites that my family members post on my FB page and you ask, "What was that thought Quinn?" I would have to block every family member (save 1 or 2) in order for me to not get Tea Party rhetoric and sites, Patriot III% sites and finally the paranoid rantings of not gonna take my guns, not gonna take my guns over my dead body they'll take my guns! So one day instead of blocking any one I decided to post on a family member's FB page that I had gone to the site that he shared on my FB page and posted a real doozey of a comment, I then told him that I told the group that he so admires that I was a family member of his and that he was really in the Socialist Party, He no likey!

I do not get these people, you just mention tougher gun control laws and they scream, "Oh My God, they are coming to take our guns!" Because truthishly(Family Guy reference) they are so goddamned dumb, that is all the rhetoric they can remember from the NRA!

PS: Wow, do I feel better!

 

Let me try to speak for them: they're not afraid of dying merely because of not being not laced up and ready to meet Doc Holliday on the far side of the traffic light where he cut them off in traffic. But they do fear for the lives and safety of gun victims everywhere, whether or not the vics remembered not only to pack heat, but to stay locked and loaded, ever vigilante, semper fi, etc. Most of them are lucky to remember to pick up the milk on the way home from work. That's probably why victims only pull a gun 0.05% of the time, even though there are two guns for every three people in the country.

Given that this discussion revolves entirely around the legality of gun ownership, then that point is moot. Police everywhere except in Candyland will use deadly force wherever authorized and no judge or jury is going to entertain any griping about it.

Ah I see your logic. Arm America to the teeth so they can start shooting back at crabby cops who are having a bad day.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You sound like someone who's hiding from the law. In that case you definitely should not have any weapons, not even a blunt instrument.

Why is is hard for gun spree advocates to understand that regulated guns are rarely used in crimes?

There's no need to assume anything. Take the number of unauthorized use of force cases against the cops in a given year, and divide by the total number of crimes in which a gun was used. As long as that number is next to nothing, no one cares about this. Hence no one cares about this.

You never saw a 250lb woman or a 110lb man vomiting on himself? Of course you prove this matters by finding out how many 110 lb women pulled a gun on a 250 lb man in self defense. :shrug:

No one cares who owns the guns. They care about how many times guns are used to kill people.

Because this is not Afghanistan?

Because if and when you or any other person with access to a gun does finally go on a shooting spree it will be a bloodbath.

Do you feel punished by not being able to keep RPGs and mortars, or just machine guns and Uzis?

So: since Joe Blow got drunk and killed a family of 9 on their way to a church picnic, you should be able to pack an Uzi in case you need to kill 9 people sober. That's the logic that tells the public that maybe you shouldn't be trusted with any kind of weapon whatsoever.

 

138 Dead As Loud Sneeze Startles NRA Meeting

 

Hahaha! I love the Onion.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

NRA member Jack Harwich admires a fellow member's piece, stirring potent new feelings within himself.

Homoerotic Overtones Enliven NRA Meeting

Twitter47
Google Plus5

COEUR D'ALENE, ID—Repression was the order of the day as the National Rifle Association's North Idaho Chapter held its annual convention this weekend.

More than 25,000 dedicated gun lovers from across Northern Idaho flocked to the Coeur d'Alene Convention Center for the two-day event, happily sublimating homosexual impulses amid a carefully maintained facade of platonic camaraderie.

Moscow, ID, resident Richard Hoflinger, 47, a longtime gun-rights activist, exhibited the collection of antique rifles through which he has channeled his culturally unacceptable impulses. "Guns should be part of any upstanding Christian family," Hoflinger said, sticking a long, thick, oily pipe-cleaner 14 inches up an 1886 Remington.

In the next booth, another latent gay man, Duane Erlich, moved his hand slowly up and down a well-polished 1948 Winchester. "Ain't she a beautiful baby?" he said, displaying the kind of feminization/infantilization of firearms for which NRA members are renowned.

Erlich then demonstrated the proper loading procedure for his "baby," lovingly inserting a pair of bullets into the dark, snug-fitting tunnels before thrusting the gun's bolt smoothly into the action, cocking it firmly. "This'll blow a man straight to heaven," he said.

The tone of the event was set by chapter president John Henry Unger, whose opening remarks cited the "wonderful variety of weaponry on display, from little snub-nosed pieces that fit snugly in your pocket to big, meaty shooters with barrels as thick as your arm."

Unger then fired his father's prize Colt Peacemaker revolver into the air, drawing raucous applause from the crowd, many of whose own fathers had suppressed latent physical attraction for their adolescent sons by channeling forbidden feelings into totemistic firearms.

 

Honestly, the gun owners don't fear for their lives either. They simply operate under the motto better to have and not need than need and not have. There are many, many things that have an infinitesimal chance of happening to you. However would you prefer to have everyone unprepared for everything? Less than one percent of legal Gun owners ever use their weapon on a human at all, only a small percentage of those people use it against an innocent.

No, my point is that you cannot have something that you outlaw to common citizens but then turn around and say citizens that the government pays need that very same item. It stats a slippery tend that escalates into a true class system. Don't think so, study history a little better.

Nope, not so much as a speeding ticket in the last 11 years and even that one was 5mph over the limit and successfully challenged.

Actually, they are used. They are just illegally obtained before they are used.

Actually, people do care. It's getting to the point that people are afraid of calling cops in case they make it worse. People know cops get away with every thing, hell even with video evidence cops are known to skate clear of charges. No, I am not advocating anyone attack the police. I'd just like to return to the days that the sheriff was only called in when people could not deal with the situation themselves.

If it's one it's enough to justify the presence of guns. Hell, if one rapist decided "Nah, she might be packing." then it's still justified.

No, they care about how the media sensationalizes those deaths. In the US more people were murdered with hammers last year than all rifle deaths (justifiable included) combined.

That's a null point.

Well, honestly you take that risk no matter what. Say we outlaw all guns. What stops a shooter (not me as honestly the idea sickens me, I don't do well in FPS) from obtaining a weapon and mowing down everything in sight? What's to stop someone from buying a buttload of gasoline and making poor man's FAE? What's to stop someone with a machete? You can't spend your life fearing what might happen. You just prepare yourself with the best defense you can and make do.

Actually, I can't see why people should be restricted from any non WMD. Honestly if some nutbar wants to go on a rampage with one they will get it somehow. Hell, I'm pretty sure I could construct a mortar. I know how to make explosives of several grades, napalm, thermite, and other nasty things. Yet in all my years I have never gone on a rampage, not from lack of tools, as I can have them in a hurry, but because I respect life.

That's your logic speaking not mine.

My Logic: Bob murders Diane. Steve should not be punished for Bob's actions.

I understand it is a bit complicated for you. I mean the concept of only punishing the guilty must seem foreign. Of course I could be mistaken and given your examples you might very well just be trying to disarm the average citizen because you feel you can't be trusted.

 

Of course The Onion is just for laughs, but I really do have to wonder about the mindset of NRA members and their sympathizers. At some point in the spectrum, paranoia is an actual mental illness. Mentally ill people with firearms do not make me feel comfortable. When I see a truck with one of these on the back, I do not feel comforted:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Who does he think is going to take it from him? What does he feel justified in doing to prevent it? If there was a radical change in this country, and by purely legal and democratic means the majority decided that firearm ownership should be severely restricted, are people with that sort of sticker actually going to shoot at any law enforcement officers that had the audacity to enforce the new laws?
More relevant to the here and now, what possible sane reason is there for fearing that such a banning and confiscation is imminent? Things as minor as trying to limit magazine size to fifteen rounds have proven to be highly controversial, and are fought tooth and nail. I don't see any realistic chance that something like a ban on semi auto weapons is possible in this country for the foreseeable future; so why so paranoid? Not just paranoid, but really wearing your mental illness like a badge of honor. That's really what I'm seeing when I see a bumper sticker like the above "Ask me about my mental illness". Except I'm not going to ask him anything, because I can see that he's paranoid, and probably packing, so I'm going to stay very far away

 

There is no defensive use of a WMD, but really my main concern is maintenance. Keeping said WMD from prematurely going off takes a lot of maintenance. You can't just trust your gass canisters won't corrode. You can't trust that stray wattage won't trigger the arming mechanism.

I know you are unable to grasp the logic here, but here it is. Driving Impaired is wrong in itself. Comparing driving drunk to owning a firearm is a particularly weak argument. The two do not compare at all. It's like comparing beating someone to death with a hammer and owning a screwdriver. Please try an argument that does not disprove itself just by existing.

 

Well, based purely on statistics, nuclear weapons are far less likely to be accidentally fired than handguns. So in that way they are safer.

But that's beside the point anyway. if you can't keep people from getting them - why regulate them? It's pointless, isn't it?

Why? You're not hurting anyone, even if you are putting other people at a somewhat higher risk.

No, no one is killed if you drive drunk if you do so safely. So your analogy is completely wrong.

Why should you be penalized by:

not being allowed to drive drunk
being required to get a license
being required to get a car registration
being required to carry insurance

just because other people are irresponsible and kill people while driving drunk, get in accidents and refuse to pay damages, drive without proper training etc?

 

We've already heard from numerous politicians and LEOs that Registration is just a step, that their goal is to confiscate all the weapons. Janet Reno said this several times, she is not the first and not the last.

As for there being a purely democratic and legal way to take weapons? Not happening. You need 75% of the population of Each State to nullify the Second Amendment. With 80 million Gun Owners out there, you're never going to get it. All we have now is a bunch of illegal measures that have been shoe horned into place with the help of sheep like yourself.

Tell me how you are safer when you disarm the law abiding population when 99% of gun violence is committed with illegally obtained guns. Tell me how Gun Free Zones are safer than areas where citizens carry openly and concealed. Tell me how our country would be safer without it's citizens having weapons when great military minds of the past viewed the Armed Citizens of the US a greater threat than it's military.

Better yet, tell me how you can support a philosophy that has preceded more than one government performing mass executions of citizens. I might not believe that our government would do that, but why risk it.