USA - One person shot every 5.2 minutes

Just to play devils advocate for a bit, isn't this a good point? After all if we banned deadly things because some people use them irresponsibly, we wouldn't be driving cars anymore.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah, then it looks like you're done here, then. Much like Sam, you should probably be looking in your own backyard before flailing your arms elsewhere.

You said gun 'accidents' - there are far more deaths caused by other means than gun accidents, and it's not just a problem in the US, yet you felt it best to target the US. Your motives are as clear as Sam's in this case.

No, what I'm doing is pointing out the flaws or your argument and more importantly your biased motives.

But, I can see you're just going to dismiss it in favor of your bias and motives, just like Sam. Well done, James.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

pardon while i snicker

/snicker

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But you are missing one thing A car is not designed to Kill a Gun is that is it sole purpose for being is to kill.

 

Not necessarily.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.olympic.org/en/content/Sports/All-Sports/Shooting/

 

I dont care what you do with a gun it was created to do one thing that is to kill. There are many uses for a Gun but its root use will be to Kill it is a weapon plain and simple.

 

kill shmill
we keep guns to defend ourselves

 

I knew someone would point that out. So I've had all day to think of the only logical retort, which is this:


:blbl:

 

Doesn't matter. Is James (or anyone else) concerned about people being killed, or ONLY people being killed by guns? If it's the latter, then it's perfectly obvious that he doesn't give a shit about humans being killed, he only cares about the issue of guns.

Is it human death that concerns you or is it only about guns?

Baron Max

 

Ok, should I pass on your concerns to the IOC and recommend they scrap the event?

 

Certainly should yes if that will make you feel better..... Actually I could careless if guns are here or not I am just pointing out why a gun was created and that to compare it to a Car is not a good comparison. Now if the comparison was Guns VS Knives then there could be a discussion about whether Guns and Knives need to be baned. That is all I am saying As Baron all so pointed out I could care less if people are being killed by guns or rocks I just simply could careless.

 

It's "Your Highness," to you.

What's all this? Didn't you just close your case?

People absolutely need guns, individually and collectively. Next.

And I think you want to avoid having a holistic discussion of gun policy. There is more to it than simply gun violence, and you know it. But you want to avoid admitting that there are benefits as well as costs to legal gun ownership, since that undercuts your "Americans are crazy stupid red necks" line.

It's an ethnic slur, like "red neck."

I'm insulting your entire culture, fuckwit.

??? Nope. I don't need one because I'm not worried about robbers or whatever. Just like essentially all of my friends, who also don't own guns. The few friends of mine that do keep arms around the house (females that live alone) opt for daggers and machetes, as it happens. I'd get a gun, if I were them.

And I'm not friends with any of the Marines, BTW. The Indian tech workers are more my crowd.

Well no. I dismissed them out-of-hand, and you have yet to succeed in re-introducing them to the discussion. Instead you've contented yourself with petty barbs. Pathetic.

Most are purchased through licensed retail outlets, not gun shows. Gun shows are a niche phenomenon, despite all the media attention they garner.

You do remember that we were talking about gun shows, don't you?

You didn't say anything about "accidental" until just now. You should seriously consider toning down the condescension, if you can't follow the subject and express yourself clearly.

And yes, they can be crimes, if negligence is involved. Which would almost certainly be the case, when a kid brings his parent's gun to school.

It is not increasing in either relative or absolute terms, and hasn't been for quite some time.

Yes there has:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

Which is yet another fact I already mentioned to you the last time around. Are you forgetful, or trolling? Either way, poorly considered move.

Most of the decrease in illegal gun availability in Australia has been related to the enforcement drive that law enforcement agencies at all levels embarked upon around the same time. And the fact that Australia is an island; do you really suppose that the same correlation would hold in the US, with its thousand-mile-long borders and lively smuggling trade?

 

Hang on a minute, you have a problem comparing guns with cars, but not knives? Even though knives also have many a completely harmless use, and are only used as weapons by the same types of people who would use anything else they could as a weapon?

 

Firearms and self-defenestration are generally held to be the most successful suicide methods (both approach 100%). As such, they are the overwhelming preference of "real" suicides. The "cry for help" suicides employ much less reliable methods like overdose or exsanguination.

But so what? Is the point of gun control to reduce the success rate of suicide attempts? If so, what's to stop serious suicides from simply jumping off of high buildings or bridges? There is no evidence that making suicide more difficult reduces the suicide rate: that requires intervention and counseling. It's irrelevant to questions of gun control policy, and so gun suicides should be discounted from gun violence statistics when considering questions of policy.

If one is interested in serious, honest analysis, that is.

 

Yeah that about somes it up As the first use for a Knife or cutting type device was for a weapon to help kill animals and then later it was discoverd that it was all so good for cutting things up. So yes a Gun is just the evolution of a cutting/stabbing type device AKA spear or sharp rock.

 

quad
can we remove incidents of accidental discharges from those particular statistics and making it only a question of product safety issue from the consumer's pov?

Consumer Regulation of Handguns by the Illinois Attorney General

The Illinois Attorney General's Authority To Promulgate Handgun ...

its hardly violence now, is it?

 

These articles in a sense are misleading they never point out the fact that it is private US gun manufacturers who are responsible. Domestic gun sales act the same way as the Arms race did with the military industrial complex, it generated a market and sales thereby subsidizing that industry. The simple fact is if you made gun ownership illegal other than for sporting purposes the murder rate would be 10% of what it is now. Most gun deaths in the US are from domestic reasons.

 

I suppose so.

It's definitely violence. Just not the type that would justify blanket restrictions on firearm ownership as such. It's the intentional mass shootings that are being thrown around as justification, here. Accidental shootings seem to be an ancillary concern, and are susceptible to a range of policy controls much less severe than blanket restrictions on firearm ownership.

 

Is it now?

Because I can think of quite a few countries with such regulations wherein the murder rate is substantially greater than 10% of the current US rate.

Australia, for example.

 

"Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power"

how is the accidental discharge of a gun, resulting in death, qualitatively different from a vehicular collision that also results in death?

where is intent?