Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[PhaelixWW]

Tell that to my insurance company that replaced my vandalized window for free. This is a common mistake.

That's comprehensive coverage, not state-mandated liability insurance. Completely different aspects, offered by the same company. And in no situation would the insurance company pay out if the damage was intentionally caused by the policy owner.

[GreatOak]

Even you must know that gun crimes aren't the cause, but a reflection or symptom of much larger underlying issues in our society.

[Rukentuts]

Guns don't "mow people down" either.

They certainly inflict more damage than knives, tasers, mace, etc.

You mean like tasers which are inexplicably illegal to own in many states?

So fight to own less damaging alternatives. And I'd love to see how illegal mace is.

I'd love to hear how to make people safer without compromising our rights. But you've flatly stated you don't want us to be able to own handguns... which explicitly determines your implication that you value compromise to be a lie.

I don't compromise with the illogical.

- - - Updated - - -

Even you must know that gun crimes aren't the cause, but a reflection or symptom of much larger underlying issues in our society.

Yes, and I'm not naive enough to think that crime would magically completely disappear by attacking even the cause. But if we can attack the cause AND limit the damage these crimes can cause, that's the best solution.

[Rooflesstoofless]

Can you find a detailed report on the number of incidents? Especially vs previous years? A rate per 100k? Or per household with firearms?

Latest stats I've found is that it's 1 in 1,200,000...but its an older article and I don't know if stats have gone up or down. I thought the article linked was pretty funny as well...no stats of any kind...just an abstract claiming its a problem! Accidental gunshot deaths are about 1 in 481,000 for the total population across all age groups per year and including hunting accidents (taking the anti-gunners own stats and comparing them to the total US population).

[dwightyo39]

I am a veteran and gun owner. With that said my rifle only gets used around deer season. I actually spend more time archery hunting and shooting my bow. I'm not one of those "in your face" gun owners.

Pretty much everyone I know owns guns. Somehow we manage to not have constant shootouts. Things are different in my state (Idaho).

[Laize]

They certainly inflict more damage than knives, tasers, mace, etc.
So fight to own less damaging alternatives. And I'd love to see how illegal mace is.

Why should I fight to own less damaging alternatives when I already have the right to own a gun?

I don't compromise with the illogical.

You don't get the luxury of declaring possession of a handgun "illogical".

Handguns exist for very valid reasons. You just deny that those reasons are applicable to people who legally have the right to own them.

[Rooflesstoofless]

I can certainly regard those that succumb to baseless fears as being silly; especially with more effective alternatives.

Just because you are unwilling to accept the facts presented to you, doesn't make them baseless.

Tell that to my insurance company that replaced my vandalized window for free. This is a common mistake.

Oh brother, are you intentionally not comprehending what he is saying?

If you broke that same window in your car because you were doing something criminal they aren't going to cover you. Seriously, go get in a fender bender while robbing a convenience store. Tell us how much you get covered.

If I burnt down my house because I had a meth lab, insurance isn't going to do shit about. If my house got burnt down because of faulty wiring or because my neighbor's BBQ settled embers on my house, that is a different story.

[Tinykong]

I don't cater to your hypocrisy. Anyone who owns a gun for "defense" needs an emotional crutch because they're afraid.

Your susceptibility to media hysteria has gotten really frightening.

I also hope you've had the guns you owned destroyed.

[Rukentuts]

Why should I fight to own less damaging alternatives when I already have the right to own a gun?

Because the costs outweigh the benefits when alternatives exist.

You don't get the luxury of declaring possession of a handgun "illogical".

Handguns exist for very valid reasons. You just deny that those reasons are applicable to people who legally have the right to own them.

There are no valid reasons that outweigh the costs. None. Zero. Your fear doesn't count. It's illogical.

[Revolutions]

If someone breaks into my house I want to be able to defend myself properly and a hand gun allows to do just that. I also believe we as a people in the United States reserve the right to properly arm ourselves incase of invasion or marshal law. This country was founded on the right to discharge the government that didn't serve the people and I wish more people had the spine to recognize that.

[Rukentuts]

This country was founded on the right to discharge the government that didn't serve the people and I wish more people had the spine to recognize that.

Yeah it's like this was never tried by a collection of confederate states or anything.

[Tinykong]

Because the costs outweigh the benefits when alternatives exist.

There are no valid reasons that outweigh the costs. None. Zero. Your fear doesn't count. It's illogical.

Arguably, if his fear of crime is irrational, so is yours.

[Revolutions]

Yeah it's like this was never tried by a collection of confederate states or anything.

And the republican God-fearing Americans won.

[Rukentuts]

And the republican God-fearing Americans won.

Just a footnote, the Republicans were still the liberal party at that time. They have nothing in common except namesake with the present-day incarnation.

[TZucchini]

And the republican God-fearing Americans won.

Oh, that's just begging to be a signature...

[Rooflesstoofless]

Sure. The AAP did a pretty good study recently. They found that between 1997 and 2009, hospitalizations from gunshot wounds increased from 4,270 to 7,730, and in-hospital deaths from 317 to 503.

Your study is better than the one I found. So the chances of a child dying from a accidental gunshot wound is about 1 in 624,000.

[Laize]

Because the costs outweigh the benefits when alternatives exist.

Subjective.

There are no valid reasons that outweigh the costs. None. Zero. Your fear doesn't count. It's illogical.

Again. Subjective.

You cannot propose legislation based on subjectivity. You cannot point to any example of increased regulation being beneficial to a state.

Hawaii has low gun crime and tough laws... but Vermont has LOWER gun crime and they may as well have NO laws on the books.

New Jersey has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation and considers itself to be a win when we only have the 20th highest gun crime out of 50 states.

It's almost as if there's no correlation between tough gun laws and gun crime in this country.

[NYC17]

If someone breaks into my house I want to be able to defend myself properly and a hand gun allows to do just that. I also believe we as a people in the United States reserve the right to properly arm ourselves incase of invasion or marshal law. This country was founded on the right to discharge the government that didn't serve the people and I wish more people had the spine to recognize that.

This country was founded on the right of white landowners to supposedly do those things. Let's not get too dramatic, ok?

Also, The Civil War answered the question of whether "discharging the government" is a viable option through armed conflict.

It isn't.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

If someone breaks into my house I want to be able to defend myself properly and a hand gun allows to do just that. I also believe we as a people in the United States reserve the right to properly arm ourselves incase of invasion or marshal law. This country was founded on the right to discharge the government that didn't serve the people and I wish more people had the spine to recognize that.

This is so ironic coming from your account name :-P


But on a serious note: I'm ok with Car insurance,Life Insurance etc etc but I think comparing them to a gun is stupid. Car insurance doesn't kill nor does life insurance. I swear to god don't start with *Well it can financially kill you*. That's just grasping at straws. You can have your precious hand gun. Just be competent enough to use it if you feel like your life is in danger and not flash your gun like it's a toy. The second you do flashing that's when I feel I feel I'm in danger(Unloaded or not, I don't know where you been bro!).

[PhaelixWW]

Sure. The AAP did a pretty good study recently. They found that between 1997 and 2009, hospitalizations from gunshot wounds increased from 4,270 to 7,730, and in-hospital deaths from 317 to 503.

Well, population rose by over 10% during that span, and I wonder if the increasing urbanization of the US also means that more gunshot victims end up being treated in hospitals instead of outside hospitals. Still, that's a decent jump in number, during a time when crime in general has been going down.

They also found:

Right, that part doesn't mean much, though. I'm sure a study would find a link between homes with backyard pools and youth drownings.

Right. And adolescents are more likely to be on the receiving end of firearm injuries. That's the point.

I said that it was comparing adolescents to pre-adolescents. Are you saying that firearm injury rates among 13-17 is higher than 1-12? Specifically at home and ignoring gang activity, since we're talking about stats related to home storage. Did you have data to back that up?

All 392 houses contained firearms and children. All 392 houses had either an unsecured firearm, a loaded firearm, or an unsecured and loaded firearm.

Uh, false. Re-read, please. It stated 22% loaded, 32% unsecured, and 8% loaded and unsecured. That 8% is the cross-section of the 22% and 32%, so in total, that accounts for only 46%. That means that 54% of the houses had a secured and unloaded firearm.

Furthermore, I'm not sure entirely how worried we're supposed to be about a secured, loaded firearm, since it's secured. That accounts for another 14%. And an unsecured but unloaded firearm is only dangerous if there's unsecured ammunition in the vicinity, so that's a questionable 24%. Honestly, the ones you should be worried about are the 8%.

That's a large sample size. It's a scientific study, and you don't get to handwave it with one sentence.

But you were comparing adolescent to pre-adolescent. And since I think the real issue here are the unsecured and loaded firearms, you're comparing 8% to 10%. 31 homes vs. 39 homes. That's a difference of only 8 homes. That's not a huge sample size to draw any serious meaning from. I didn't say it was meaningless, just that it wasn't terribly meaningful. Not the same thing at all.

Telling a 2-year-old child not to touch a firearm? Really? Is that supposed to work?

People tell their 2-year-olds not to touch stuff all the time. Nobody's suggesting that they're going to then leave the firearm loaded and out in the open. Training comes before responsibility. Would you have a firearm in the house and not start teaching your kids to respect the danger they can cause as early as you could?

Sorry. But if you're giving firearm safety lessons to a 2-year-old, you're...not smart...in my opinion....

There's a big difference between teaching a child not to touch something without supervision and teaching them to safely use the thing. I'm pretty sure Marthisdil was not talking about teaching a 2-year-old to shoot. He said that he was going to teach his son about firearm safety starting at 2-3. You don't cover all aspects at once. You gradually allow more hands-on teaching at successive ages. It feels like you're being a bit disingenous here.