Pro-gun vs No-gun America

[slapshot]

I challenge that unsubstantiated conclusion. Post a link with data to back it up.

Take out the suicide perps (not innocent) and those killed while involved in crimes (not innocent) and I'll wager that only a very small percentage were "innocent victims."

Please review what I said. I said killings by guns, that includes homicides, accidental and suicides.

[slapshot]

Jeebus -

Here is a breakdown I found in Forbes. Pretty interesting article. The data is from 2005, the last year the Forbes could find with all the completed data:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewh...-and-violence/

"Firearms were used to kill 30,143 people in the United States in 2005, the most recent year with complete data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.1*A total of 17,002 of these were suicides, 12,352 homicides, and 789 accidental firearm deaths. Nearly half of these deaths occurred in people under the age of 35. When we consider that there were also nearly 70,000 nonfatal injuries from firearms, we are left with the staggering fact that 100,000 men, women, and children were killed or wounded by firearms in the span of just one year."

Further, several studies have showed a very strong correlation between guns in the home, and suicides (family member, etc) in the home:

http://archive.sph.harvard.edu/press...s04102007.html

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

....and yes, I consider someone who takes their own life as an "innocent" victim. Might they have committed suicide some other way than by gun? Perhaps. But studies have also shown that most suicides are impulsive, and are usually a spontaneous reaction to some event in their life - from being gilted by their spouce to loosing a job...to whatever. Chances are, many of these suicides don't happen if there is no quick fix to ending their pain. Easy and open access to a gun in the home is often that quick answer they are looking for...sadly.

[pmore108]

Jeebus -

Here is a breakdown I found in Forbes. Pretty interesting article. The data is from 2005, the last year the Forbes could find with all the completed data:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewh...-and-violence/

"Firearms were used to kill 30,143 people in the United States in 2005, the most recent year with complete data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.1*A total of 17,002 of these were suicides, 12,352 homicides, and 789 accidental firearm deaths. Nearly half of these deaths occurred in people under the age of 35. When we consider that there were also nearly 70,000 nonfatal injuries from firearms, we are left with the staggering fact that 100,000 men, women, and children were killed or wounded by firearms in the span of just one year."


Further, several studies have showed a very strong correlation between guns in the home, and suicides (family member, etc) in the home:

http://archive.sph.harvard.edu/press...s04102007.html

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

....and yes, I consider someone who takes their own life as an "innocent" victim. Might they have committed suicide some other way than by gun? Perhaps. But studies have also shown that most suicides are impulsive, and are usually a spontaneous reaction to some event in their life - from being gilted by their spouce to loosing a job...to whatever. Chances are, many of these suicides don't happen if there is no quick fix to ending their pain. Easy and open access to a gun in the home is often that quick answer they are looking for...sadly.

What would your ideal gun legislation package be? Just curious...

[slapshot]

What would your ideal gun legislation package be? Just curious...

Unfortunately, my "ideal" legislation would not reflect reality, and having to amend the 2nd.

Right now, all we are doing is putting band aide solutions that I don't believe will have a dramatic impact on gun violence. But with that said, I do support the President's belief that "we have to try" and "even if we only save one life, it's worth it".

Things that I would do would include taxing guns and ammo at a very high rate....as we have done with cigarettes. I would also make liability insurance mandatory and prohibitively expensive if the owner was found guilty of some gun violation/law. Cigarettes use use to be very common in this country. Everyone smoked...and it was addicting, to boot. But over the course of several generations, cigarette smokers have become a dying breed (so to speak).

I see nothing wrong with having a national background check and data base of owners.

There are many other's, but I would come at this mainly from the market place to change people's attitudes, gun buying habits and to make them more responsible owners (ie, storage, etc). Those that screw up, should pay (literally) a heavy price for the right to own a gun.

As was done for decades, with cigarettes, I would launch a sustained advertising/marketing campaign about guns....not necessarily aimed at elliminating guns, but to educate and influence people to be more responsible in their storage and use.

[pmore108]

Unfortunately, my "ideal" legislation would not reflect reality, and having to amend the 2nd.

Right now, all we are doing is putting band aide solutions that I don't believe will have a dramatic impact on gun violence. But with that said, I do support the President's belief that "we have to try" and "even if we only save one life, it's worth it".

Things that I would do would include taxing guns and ammo at a very high rate....as we have done with cigarettes. I would also make liability insurance mandatory and prohibitively expensive if the owner was found guilty of some gun violation/law. Cigarettes use use to be very common in this country. Everyone smoked...and it was addicting, to boot. But over the course of several generations, cigarette smokers have become a dying breed (so to speak).

I see nothing wrong with having a national background check and data base of owners.

There are many other's, but I would come at this mainly from the market place to change people's attitudes, gun buying habits and to make them more responsible owners (ie, storage, etc). Those that screw up, should pay (literally) a heavy price for the right to own a gun.

As was done for decades, with cigarettes, I would launch a sustained advertising/marketing campaign about guns....not necessarily aimed at elliminating guns, but to educate and influence people to be more responsible in their storage and use.

Can i infer that the highlighted statement means you would want limited or no private ownership of firearms?

I agree with you on the national background check and heavy payment or jail time if you misuse or improperly store a weapon. A database not so much.

[Jeebus]

Please review what I said. I said killings by guns, that includes homicides, accidental and suicides.

Please review it yourself.

You said "Many of them are innocent victims" which is what I am responding to.

Post the data that shows how many are innocent victims, please.

[Jeebus]

But with that said, I do support the President's belief that "we have to try" and "even if we only save one life, it's worth it".

So why not ban balloons and 5-gallon buckets, which claim more "innocent victims" than firearms?

After all, we have no Constitutional amendment protecting the right to keep and bear balloons and buckets, so I think that would easily pass.

Isn't a single life saved from those bans also worth it?

[slapshot]

Can i infer that the highlighted statement means you would want limited or no private ownership of firearms?

I agree with you on the national background check and heavy payment or jail time if you misuse or improperly store a weapon. A database not so much.

Limit.

My position has always been - there are many things that our Founding Fathers had no way of predicting, when they drafted the Constitution, Bill of Rights. I view these documents as living and breathing templates for what is good about America. But, I do not believe they are etched in stone, and can not be changed. They can be changed, but the hurdle to enact change (and rightfully so) is very difficult. So, realistically, we continue to fall back on court challenges to get fresh interpretations of what the 2nd means. Even in the most recent Supreme Court challenge, gun advocates won a narrow, 5-4 victory in Heller. Clearly, the forces of change have not been diminished....

[slapshot]

Please review it yourself.

You said "Many of them are innocent victims" which is what I am responding to.

Post the data that shows how many are innocent victims, please.

Already asked and answered.

You may not consider accidental and suicide victims of guns as "innocents", but most do. If someone's son/daughter gets hold of dad's gun and accidentally shoots their friend, while showing it off, are you saying they were not an innocent victim? Or the kid who's been bullied at school, who, in a moment do dispair, decides to end his life by getting his dad's gun...are you saying he is not an innocent person? Wow. We have vastly different definitions of what an innocent victim is.

With regards to the homicides, there are no clear statistics (that I know of) that separate out innocent victims, from criminals.

That said, we certainly know that the 26 victims at Sandy Hook, and the scores killed at Aurora, VaTech and Columbine were all innocent victims. I'm sure the number is well into the 1,000's of the 10,000+ homicide victims, annually.

[slapshot]

So why not ban balloons and 5-gallon buckets, which claim more "innocent victims" than firearms?

After all, we have no Constitutional amendment protecting the right to keep and bear balloons and buckets, so I think that would easily pass.

Isn't a single life saved from those bans also worth it?

Link please?

[soulflower]

While I do not believe anyone is trying to ban all guns, perhaps the gun lovers and 2nd amendment supporters are not so unhinged as you think. Maybe they have just been paying attention for the past several decades. There are plenty of examples of government becoming more and more intrusive in people's everyday lives and telling them what they can't do and can't have. Mayor Bloomberg's war on sugary drinks and trans fats are one. The entire smoking issue over the last couple of decades is another. And government doesn't just jump to the end game right away. It goes in smaller, more palatable increments. Take the smoking bans that are now prevalent in most states. Aside from taxing the crap out of one legal product, governments started by making it illegal to smoke in offices. This excluded bars and restaraunts. Later, they mandated that bars and restaruants must add expensive smoke-eater systems to all smoking areas. Then, after bars and restaruants spent thousands of dollars on those systems, they decided the ban would extend to them as well. Now a lot of states include public places such as parks and beaches in the ban. Some area's have even suggested targeting apartments and individual homes. So you have a legal product which 25-30 years ago could be used almost anywhere, that has now been outlawed in most areas of a lot of states. I'm not arguing the merits of these laws, simply providing the example for how governments begin small and incrementally keep chipping away until they reach their final destination. Small gun restrictions now, turn into larger ones later, smaller bans, and eventually all out bans. So maybe that is why gun enthusiasts get so fired up at the mention of even smaller restrictions on gun ownership. What seems absolutely impossible now, could turn out to be reality years down the road as government chips away until they obtain an all out ban.

I think you might be onto something but I can find few examples of cigarette smokers nor the tobacco industry reacting the way gun owners and the gun industry(including the NRA) have reacted the past few years...

[soulflower]

So why not ban balloons and 5-gallon buckets, which claim more "innocent victims" than firearms?

Got a link?

Keep in mind that there are around 70,000 non-fatal shootings in the US ever year(http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ook-post-says/).

People who are non-fatally wounded by guns are also victims.

[Jeebus]

Got a link?

Keep in mind that there are around 70,000 non-fatal shootings in the US ever year(http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ook-post-says/).

People who are non-fatally wounded by guns are also victims.

Provide the link that shows how many of them innocent non-fatal shooting victims.

Provide the link that shows gun deaths of innocent victims vs those involved in crimes, including suicides (not innocent victims btw)

Just use the stats from Baltimore City! Tell us how many of the gun murders from last year involved innocent victims of firearms violence, and how many were deaths from drug wars, gang wars, etc.

[soulflower]

Provide the link that shows how many of them innocent non-fatal shooting victims.

First you have to define "innocent".

Do you mean innocent as in "innocent bystander"?

Do you mean innocent as in a person who hasn't been convicted of a crime?

I have no idea what you mean honestly.

Any victim of unjustifiable gun violence is innocent(unless proven otherwise) IMHO...

Provide the link that shows gun deaths of innocent victims vs those involved in crimes, including suicides (not innocent victims btw)

First you have to define innocent. I'm not sure that a link exists that will meet your definition of innocent...

Just use the stats from Baltimore City! Tell us how many of the gun murders from last year involved innocent victims of firearms violence, and how many were deaths from drug wars, gang wars, etc.

So NO ONE killed or wounded in drug related violence is innocent? Is that the standard you're applying?

[Jeebus]

First you have to define "innocent".

Do you mean innocent as in "innocent bystander"?

Do you mean innocent as in a person who hasn't been convicted of a crime?

I have no idea what you mean honestly.

Any victim of unjustifiable gun violence is innocent(unless proven otherwise) IMHO...



First you have to define innocent. I'm not sure that a link exists that will meet your definition of innocent...

I've defined, you've just ignored it.

Anyone not engaged in the commission of a crime, not involved in dealing/buying/selling/transporting illegal drugs, not involved with gang warfare, or not killed by their own hands (suicide).

NONE of the above can be classified as "innocent" victims.

So NO ONE killed or wounded in drug related violence is innocent? Is that the standard you're applying?

Of course not. Someone walking home from the store killed by a stray bullet in a gang fight - innocent.

Some mom or dad walking home from work is robbed in a stick up and shot and killed by some thug crackhead - innocent.

Teenagers playing with guns accidentely shoots his buddy, brother, etc - innocent.

Victims of mentally ill mass murderers - innocent.

Wife/husband killed by jealous raging spouse - innocent.

Someone killed for insurance - innocent.

You get the picture?

I'll bet those "many thousands" that everyone seems to care so much about are reduced by about 90% when we actually look at WHO is getting killed by all these firearms murders.

[soulflower]

I've defined, you've just ignored it.

Anyone not engaged in the commission of a crime, not involved in dealing/buying/selling/transporting illegal drugs, not involved with gang warfare, or not killed by their own hands (suicide).

NONE of the above can be classified as "innocent" victims.



Of course not. Someone walking home from the store killed by a stray bullet in a gang fight - innocent.

Some mom or dad walking home from work is robbed in a stick up and shot and killed by some thug crackhead - innocent.

Teenagers playing with guns accidentely shoots his buddy, brother, etc - innocent.

Victims of mentally ill mass murderers - innocent.

Don't forget about violence towards victims who cooperated with the police. There are a lot of those too.

There's also victims who get killed or wounded for having friends or family members involved in drugs even though they themselves aren't involved. Wrong place wrong time situations.

Basically, there are all sorts of scenarios. It's not as simple to determine which victims are totally innocent as you made it sound.

I doubt that there are any studies in existance that go into detail on the nature of the victims of certain gun related crimes. But if you find one that supports your contention, I'd be happy to check it out