Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Tinykong]

OK. Let's use some more relevant data, shall we?

The total cost of U.S. firearm violence in 2010 was $174 billion.

Here's a source from 1997 that puts the cost of gunshot wounds at $126 billion.

The dollar cost to society alone is more than enough reason to tightly restrict access to these shiny pieces of metal.

The first link is $174 billion total costs, with $153 billion from fatal gunshots.

The second link is $126 billion from non-fatal gunshot wounds.

You just blew your own argument up. I'm starting to wonder if you're actually arguing a point, or just trying to find sources to back up your skewed opinions.

[Kellhound]

Oh good! I thought you'd never ask.

In the context of gun control, the original intent is all that matters, as it's the only intent that actually has an effect on society.

We can run around screaming "yeah but guns are almost always used for shooting paper targets!" Well yeah, that's great, but it's also irrelevant in the context of gun control. I don't want to reduce firearms because people collect them, I want to reduce them because they kill and injure people. So talking about collectibles or sportsmanship in a thread about gun control is useless. No one cares that you collect them. We care that they're used for killing.



Whelp, instead of just telling you how silly those comparisons are, I'll tell you why they're silly.

Cars play a vital role in society. Without them, our economy would crash overnight. Can't say the same thing about firearms (in the hands of citizens). The medical costs of keeping cars outweighs the cost of eliminating them completely. Isn't that obvious? Don't you understand why such a comparison is completely ridiculous. Cars also are not designed, in any capacity, to kill people.

The same goes for alcohol and tobacco. Neither are designed, in any capacity, to kill people. They are designed for enjoyment. Intent of the object is crucial.

And on a side note, I'd love to see more restrictions on alcohol and cigarettes, or higher taxes, to shift the burden onto the consumer. But that's really not relevant to this thread.



Good! You're starting to get it. A thread about firearms should discuss...drumroll...firearms!



OK. Let's use some more relevant data, shall we?

The total cost of U.S. firearm violence in 2010 was $174 billion.

Here's a source from 1997 that puts the cost of gunshot wounds at $126 billion.

The dollar cost to society alone is more than enough reason to tightly restrict access to these shiny pieces of metal.

So, even though you cannot use alcohol and tabacco without causing harm to yourself (and often those around you) its ok because they are intended for enjoyment, but guns are bad even though few uses cause harm because, as you state, they are intended only to kill?

[PhaelixWW]

Yea the arguments that simple and there are no other factors. Let's talk about massacres, where did the VT shooter get his guns? What about Sandy Hook? And this navy yard chap? This isn't some point i'm making...(yet). I just havent found the answers in my few minutes of research.

If they were brought legally do you see a problem?

Yes. The problem is mental illness and the fact that it's often either difficult to adequately diagnose the potential severity of its effect and/or the unwillingness of people to officially report suspected dangers to others until it's too late.

Spose but that sentence went with the graph.

And the graph is just as meaningless. A more meaningful graph would either show crime rates regardless of weapon choice, or at least gun crime per capita gun owners, not simply per capita population. Then you would factor out the increased prevalence of firearms vs other types of weapons.

If the US has 30x the rate of legal ownership of firearms, but only 10x the firearm crime rate, then it would stand to reason that US legal gun owners are 3x less likely, on average, to commit crime with said firearms. Wouldn't that be a more meaningful statistic?

Honestly, gun crime is high because crime is high, and because there are millions of guns already in circulation.

[Jaxi]

-snip-

All your links are from different sources. But anyway, first link:

"In a one-year period, the cost of medical care and productivity losses associated with injuries from motor vehicle crashes exceeded $99 billion – with the cost of direct medical care accounting for $17 billion, "

So you're citing direct costs here, but on the firearm violence you're citing total (which is direct and indirect) costs. That's not biased of you at all! Additionally, in the gun violence link, he cites the cost of lost work hours, yet nothing of the sort is cited in the car crash accident.

You need to be careful when comparing different studies because the methodology is often different.

[tombstoner139]

The total cost of U.S. firearm violence in 2010 was $174 billion.

Here's a source from 1997 that puts the cost of gunshot wounds at $126 billion.

The dollar cost to society alone is more than enough reason to tightly restrict access to these shiny pieces of metal.

What is it for cars? i wonder if its higher? 300 billion you say.....

http://newsroom.aaa.com/2011/11/aaa-...gestion-costs/

If we are going to control or regulate something for the good of all.... lets prioritize. cars first then guns. handing over a 4,000 lb chunk of metal into the hands of a 17 year old driver... what could go wrong..... No Breathalyzer disconnect on the ignition. No speed governors on the transmission. what are we thinking. o yea we expect people to behave responsible with tools that when used correctly serve there intended function, but when miss used result in death.

[TZucchini]

The first link is $174 billion total costs, with $153 billion from fatal gunshots.

The second link is $126 billion from non-fatal gunshot wounds.

You just blew your own argument up. I'm starting to wonder if you're actually arguing a point, or just trying to find sources to back up your skewed opinions.

I blew up my own argument? How so?

I'm arguing that the financial cost to society is reason enough to eliminate firearms. If anything, I just helped my argument ten-fold.

- - - Updated - - -

All your links are from different sources. But anyway, first link:

"In a one-year period, the cost of medical care and productivity losses associated with injuries from motor vehicle crashes exceeded $99 billion – with the cost of direct medical care accounting for $17 billion, "

So you're citing direct costs here, but on the firearm violence you're citing total (which is direct and indirect) costs. That's not biased of you at all! Additionally, in the gun violence link, he cites the cost of lost work hours, yet nothing of the sort is cited in the car crash accident.

You need to be careful when comparing different studies because the methodology is often different.

Can we get off the cars? No one gives a shit. They serve a practical purpose for society. They aren't created with the intention to kill. The differences couldn't be bigger. And, of course, it's a thread about firearms!

[Kellhound]

I blew up my own argument? How so?

I'm arguing that the financial cost to society is reason enough to eliminate firearms. If anything, I just helped my argument ten-fold.

- - - Updated - - -



Can we get off the cars? No one gives a shit. They serve a practical purpose for society. They aren't created with the intention to kill. The differences couldn't be bigger. And, of course, it's a thread about firearms!

But its not enough of a factor to ban other hazzardous things....

[TZucchini]

So, even though you cannot use alcohol and tabacco without causing harm to yourself (and often those around you) its ok because they are intended for enjoyment, but guns are bad even though few uses cause harm because, as you state, they are intended only to kill?

Firearms are not intended only to kill. But it's certainly one of their intentions.

- - - Updated - - -

But its not enough of a factor to ban other hazzardous things....

Yes it is. Haven't you heard of jarts?

Man, you guys are obsessed with these meaningless comparisons. Focus on the firearm data.

[Tinykong]

I blew up my own argument? How so?

I'm arguing that the financial cost to society is reason enough to eliminate firearms. If anything, I just helped my argument ten-fold.

No, you proved that the costs of non-fatal firearm injuries has decreased from $126 billion in 1997 to $21 billion in 2010. Over $100 billion in total costs reduced while gun laws have become less restrictive and total circulation increased. Like I said, you proved yourself wrong. Well done.

[rhandric]

Firearms are not intended only to kill. But it's certainly one of their intentions.

Firearms have no intentions, only their owners/users do. Same goes for cars, knives, drugs, and every other non-sentient object.

[Jaxi]

Can we get off the cars? No one gives a shit. They serve a practical purpose for society. They aren't created with the intention to kill. The differences couldn't be bigger. And, of course, it's a thread about firearms!

1) You linked it to try to compare the two, now you want to go away from it?
2) You're talking about costs, now you want to switch to intent?
3) Comparisons are a necessity in forming arguments.

[Kellhound]

Firearms are not intended only to kill. But it's certainly one of their intentions.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes it is. Haven't you heard of jarts?

Man, you guys are obsessed with these meaningless comparisons. Focus on the firearm data.

They are meaningless to you only because you don't like firearms, so the harm they cause is obviously worse than anything else causing harm to society (which you may happen to like).

[TZucchini]

No, you proved that the costs of non-fatal firearm injuries has decreased from $126 billion in 1997 to $21 billion in 2010. Over $100 billion in total costs reduced while gun laws have become less restrictive and total circulation increased. Like I said, you proved yourself wrong. Well done.

Where does that link say non-fatal? It says gunshot wounds, just like the first link. It includes wounds that result in death. So yeah. That's an increase.

- - - Updated - - -

Firearms have no intentions, only their owners/users do. Same goes for cars, knives, drugs, and every other non-sentient object.

This is cute and clever, but completely false. I mean do I really have to say "The manufacturers produce firearms with one of the intents being a capacity to kill."

[Rukentuts]

My 2nd Amendment rights are violated by the banning of switchblades.

[TZucchini]

1) You linked it to try to compare the two, now you want to go away from it?
2) You're talking about costs, now you want to switch to intent?
3) Comparisons are a necessity in forming arguments.

I've never tried to compare cars and firearms, and I've laughed at every attempt to do so.

We can talk about costs and intent at the same time.

Comparisons are a necessity when you can't back up your argument without switching subjects.

[rhandric]

Where does that link say non-fatal? It says gunshot wounds, just like the first link. It includes wounds that result in death. So yeah. That's an increase.

- - - Updated - - -



This is cute and clever, but completely false. I mean do I really have to say "The manufacturers produce firearms with one of the intents being a capacity to kill."

Really? I thought manufacturers produce firearms for the purpose of, I dunno, making money?

[Jaxi]

I've never tried to compare cars and firearms, and I've laughed at every attempt to do so.

Those weren't your links. My mistake.

Comparisons are a necessity when you can't back up your argument without switching subjects.

Absolutely wrong. Comparisons give perspective.

[Vizardlorde]

My 2nd Amendment rights are violated by the banning of switchblades.

I cant carry a longsword either we are screwed man the SCOTUS decided to back only fire arms in their last interpretation of the second amendment T-T

[Rukentuts]

Comparisons only give perspective when they're not absolutely false.

[Kellhound]

I've never tried to compare cars and firearms, and I've laughed at every attempt to do so.

We can talk about costs and intent at the same time.

Comparisons are a necessity when you can't back up your argument without switching subjects.

The thing is, your arguement is only really valid if applied to all things, without that you are playing off emotion and not logic.