Register

Author Topic: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?  (Read 39518 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gah

  • Dans et hors du foyer, le temps tourne le temps, élastiques virages
  • Gamehendge
  • ***
  • Posts: 17004
  • Karma: 689
  • Gender: Male
  • The circus is the place for me....
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #390 on: December 20, 2012, 04:01:38 PM »

That's my point. What are those "results" that you're talking about? The gun not being used for its intended purpose?

Yeah, that's what I mean.  Specifically, damage to personal property and injury.  Shooting a deer doesn't carry an liability, shooting up a house or person does. 


I agree, you're right. The manufacturers being held liable would limit the number of "big-bangers" produced and sold, but for those that are in the market for such an item because that's the only thing that will get the job done, they'd be willing to pay that larger amount. It wouldn't have to cut into their profits as they'd make up for in price point what they lose in volume.

ETA: so I don't think they'd "quit making the gun", they'd just make less of them, mark it up to make up the difference and cover the liability. We'd have less fo the "big bangers" and only in the hands of those that really "need" them.

Isn't that a "win" for all players???  Manufacturers will still be able to pull in their profit and fewer guns on the street...  All without passing legislation further limiting a law-abiding citizen from obtaining a gun, ie "gun control".

Perhaps we can find a model in the Tobacco Law Suits.  Why should health insurers pay for all the "damages"?  Why not make the manufacturer's pay for some of it, even if owning and using tobacco is entirely voluntary by a third party, namely the individual citizen. 

Terry

So we're saying the same thing. This is a good idea. You should run for office.
Sometimes we live no particular way but our own.

Offline gah

  • Dans et hors du foyer, le temps tourne le temps, élastiques virages
  • Gamehendge
  • ***
  • Posts: 17004
  • Karma: 689
  • Gender: Male
  • The circus is the place for me....
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #391 on: December 20, 2012, 04:23:41 PM »
wild leaps of logic and made up statistics.  well done.

There were 14.4+ million gun background check in the US in 2011.  This doesn't include all sales.  It should be adjusted for purchases by those that have already had a background check, and for adjusted again for denied checks.  It should also be adjusted for sales outside of the jurisdiction of the law (loop-holes at gun-shows, etc).

There were 8500+ murders by firearms in US in 2011.

That comes out to 0.000596, or less that 99.9%.  Yes, I assume that all of those murders were committed with a gun sold in 2011.

Terry


ETA, if we take a guess and say that only HALF of those 14.4+ resulted in a new gun being sold, that still comes out to 0.00119, or 99.88%.

how many were used in a violent crime that didn't end in murder?    how many in suicides?  how many were rifles with a legitimate use besides the killing of humans?

"The number of deaths by firearms in the United States was 32,000 last year. Around 11,000 were gun homicides."

"Almost 20,000 Americans die each year using guns to commit suicide — a method that is much more successful than other forms of suicide."

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

Also, pretty straight forward op ed piece from Fareed Zakaria from the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-the-solution-to-gun-violence-is-clear/2012/12/19/110a6f82-4a15-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_story.html?tid=pm_pop
Sometimes we live no particular way but our own.

Offline VDB

  • In the Band
  • ***
  • Posts: 8346
  • Karma: 301
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #392 on: December 20, 2012, 04:31:10 PM »
I agree, you're right. The manufacturers being held liable would limit the number of "big-bangers" produced and sold, but for those that are in the market for such an item because that's the only thing that will get the job done, they'd be willing to pay that larger amount. It wouldn't have to cut into their profits as they'd make up for in price point what they lose in volume.

ETA: so I don't think they'd "quit making the gun", they'd just make less of them, mark it up to make up the difference and cover the liability. We'd have less fo the "big bangers" and only in the hands of those that really "need" them.

Isn't that a "win" for all players???  Manufacturers will still be able to pull in their profit and fewer guns on the street...  All without passing legislation further limiting a law-abiding citizen from obtaining a gun, ie "gun control".

What about the people who would like to own that gun (to add to their collection, or to blast tree stumps on their private property, or whatever) but can't afford it because some actuary had it effectively priced it out of their range? And as you yourself pointed out, Terry, the vast majority of all the people who would like to own that gun are not going to wind up committing heinous, terrible acts with it. But they will have to end up underwriting the recompense paid out to the victims of the lunatics who would use that firearm for evil deeds.

If there are certain guns that are so dangerous that their prices must be jacked way up to cover the inevitable liability, why not just ban the gun outright? How is it fair to keep it available only for the very wealthy -- are they inherently less likely to snap and want to use it to commit mayhem?
there is no explanation
it's all inside your head


de gustibus non disputandum

Offline aphineday

  • Wrote the Book
  • **
  • Posts: 4792
  • Karma: 411
  • Gender: Male
  • I'll get up and fly away...
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #393 on: December 20, 2012, 04:33:01 PM »
wild leaps of logic and made up statistics.  well done.

There were 14.4+ million gun background check in the US in 2011.  This doesn't include all sales.  It should be adjusted for purchases by those that have already had a background check, and for adjusted again for denied checks.  It should also be adjusted for sales outside of the jurisdiction of the law (loop-holes at gun-shows, etc).

There were 8500+ murders by firearms in US in 2011.

That comes out to 0.000596, or less that 99.9%.  Yes, I assume that all of those murders were committed with a gun sold in 2011.

Terry


ETA, if we take a guess and say that only HALF of those 14.4+ resulted in a new gun being sold, that still comes out to 0.00119, or 99.88%.

how many were used in a violent crime that didn't end in murder?    how many in suicides?  how many were rifles with a legitimate use besides the killing of humans?

"The number of deaths by firearms in the United States was 32,000 last year. Around 11,000 were gun homicides."

"Almost 20,000 Americans die each year using guns to commit suicide — a method that is much more successful than other forms of suicide."

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

Also, pretty straight forward op ed piece from Fareed Zakaria from the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-the-solution-to-gun-violence-is-clear/2012/12/19/110a6f82-4a15-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_story.html?tid=pm_pop

Zakaria is very on point here. As a matter of fact, I stole this and posted it on my Facebook, thanks GAH.
You can argue all you want, but the facts are pretty irrefutable.
I know there will be whining and complaining from many of the steadfast gun rights people, but I don't give a fuck.

I own 15+ guns, both pistols and rifles.  I am all for gun reform to keep horrible shit like this happening.
You, sir deserve a +k.
If we could see these many waves that flow through clouds and sunken caves...

Offline twatts

  • Wrote the Book
  • **
  • Posts: 2851
  • Karma: 217
  • Gender: Male
  • PHISH
    • http://db.etree.org/twatts
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #394 on: December 20, 2012, 04:39:02 PM »
wild leaps of logic and made up statistics.  well done.

There were 14.4+ million gun background check in the US in 2011.  This doesn't include all sales.  It should be adjusted for purchases by those that have already had a background check, and for adjusted again for denied checks.  It should also be adjusted for sales outside of the jurisdiction of the law (loop-holes at gun-shows, etc).

There were 8500+ murders by firearms in US in 2011.

That comes out to 0.000596, or less that 99.9%.  Yes, I assume that all of those murders were committed with a gun sold in 2011.

Terry


ETA, if we take a guess and say that only HALF of those 14.4+ resulted in a new gun being sold, that still comes out to 0.00119, or 99.88%.

how many were used in a violent crime that didn't end in murder?    how many in suicides?  how many were rifles with a legitimate use besides the killing of humans?

"The number of deaths by firearms in the United States was 32,000 last year. Around 11,000 were gun homicides."

"Almost 20,000 Americans die each year using guns to commit suicide — a method that is much more successful than other forms of suicide."

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

Also, pretty straight forward op ed piece from Fareed Zakaria from the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-the-solution-to-gun-violence-is-clear/2012/12/19/110a6f82-4a15-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_story.html?tid=pm_pop

Thanks!  Based on those numbers (32,000) vs. the 7.2mil BackGround Checks (half of the actual 14.4mil number), we're still talking about 0.05% of gun sales from last year assumed to have committed 100% of those deaths...  We assume that to favor YOUR numbers...  In order to favor mine, I could say that some of the guns used to commit those crimes were bought the year before...

And Fareed's solution is to get rid of the guns.  I imagine his solution to the drug problem would be to get rid of drugs.  Tell us again Fareed...  how is the War on Drugs going??? 

Terry
Oh! That! No, no, no, you're not ready to step into The Court of the Crimson King. At this stage in your training an album like that could turn you into an evil scientist.

----------------------

I want super-human will
I want better than average skill
I want a million dollar bill
And I want it all in a Pill

Offline gah

  • Dans et hors du foyer, le temps tourne le temps, élastiques virages
  • Gamehendge
  • ***
  • Posts: 17004
  • Karma: 689
  • Gender: Male
  • The circus is the place for me....
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #395 on: December 20, 2012, 04:41:12 PM »
I agree, you're right. The manufacturers being held liable would limit the number of "big-bangers" produced and sold, but for those that are in the market for such an item because that's the only thing that will get the job done, they'd be willing to pay that larger amount. It wouldn't have to cut into their profits as they'd make up for in price point what they lose in volume.

ETA: so I don't think they'd "quit making the gun", they'd just make less of them, mark it up to make up the difference and cover the liability. We'd have less fo the "big bangers" and only in the hands of those that really "need" them.

Isn't that a "win" for all players???  Manufacturers will still be able to pull in their profit and fewer guns on the street...  All without passing legislation further limiting a law-abiding citizen from obtaining a gun, ie "gun control".

What about the people who would like to own that gun (to add to their collection, or to blast tree stumps on their private property, or whatever) but can't afford it because some actuary had it effectively priced it out of their range? And as you yourself pointed out, Terry, the vast majority of all the people who would like to own that gun are not going to wind up committing heinous, terrible acts with it. But they will have to end up underwriting the recompense paid out to the victims of the lunatics who would use that firearm for evil deeds.

If there are certain guns that are so dangerous that their prices must be jacked way up to cover the inevitable liability, why not just ban the gun outright? How is it fair to keep it available only for the very wealthy -- are they inherently less likely to snap and want to use it to commit mayhem?

Why would you ban a gun that people NEED. Your comment about how is it fair to price people out of buying something to "add to their collection" or "blast tree stumps" both sound like "wants" not needs. If a dangerous gun is necessary, let those that need it, be able to get it.

(But I certainly wouldn't disagree with banning it altogether)
Sometimes we live no particular way but our own.

Offline twatts

  • Wrote the Book
  • **
  • Posts: 2851
  • Karma: 217
  • Gender: Male
  • PHISH
    • http://db.etree.org/twatts
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #396 on: December 20, 2012, 04:43:33 PM »

What about the people who would like to own that gun (to add to their collection, or to blast tree stumps on their private property, or whatever) but can't afford it because some actuary had it effectively priced it out of their range? And as you yourself pointed out, Terry, the vast majority of all the people who would like to own that gun are not going to wind up committing heinous, terrible acts with it. But they will have to end up underwriting the recompense paid out to the victims of the lunatics who would use that firearm for evil deeds.

If there are certain guns that are so dangerous that their prices must be jacked way up to cover the inevitable liability, why not just ban the gun outright? How is it fair to keep it available only for the very wealthy -- are they inherently less likely to snap and want to use it to commit mayhem?

That's a valid point...  But guns are a "luxury" and most Americans have no real issue raising "taxes" or "fees" on luxury items...  No one seemed to mind when we paid for Tobacco Abstinence Education with Tobacco Tax Dollars...

Terry
Oh! That! No, no, no, you're not ready to step into The Court of the Crimson King. At this stage in your training an album like that could turn you into an evil scientist.

----------------------

I want super-human will
I want better than average skill
I want a million dollar bill
And I want it all in a Pill

Offline aphineday

  • Wrote the Book
  • **
  • Posts: 4792
  • Karma: 411
  • Gender: Male
  • I'll get up and fly away...
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #397 on: December 20, 2012, 04:45:45 PM »
wild leaps of logic and made up statistics.  well done.

There were 14.4+ million gun background check in the US in 2011.  This doesn't include all sales.  It should be adjusted for purchases by those that have already had a background check, and for adjusted again for denied checks.  It should also be adjusted for sales outside of the jurisdiction of the law (loop-holes at gun-shows, etc).

There were 8500+ murders by firearms in US in 2011.

That comes out to 0.000596, or less that 99.9%.  Yes, I assume that all of those murders were committed with a gun sold in 2011.

Terry


ETA, if we take a guess and say that only HALF of those 14.4+ resulted in a new gun being sold, that still comes out to 0.00119, or 99.88%.

how many were used in a violent crime that didn't end in murder?    how many in suicides?  how many were rifles with a legitimate use besides the killing of humans?

"The number of deaths by firearms in the United States was 32,000 last year. Around 11,000 were gun homicides."

"Almost 20,000 Americans die each year using guns to commit suicide — a method that is much more successful than other forms of suicide."

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

Also, pretty straight forward op ed piece from Fareed Zakaria from the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-the-solution-to-gun-violence-is-clear/2012/12/19/110a6f82-4a15-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_story.html?tid=pm_pop

Thanks!  Based on those numbers (32,000) vs. the 7.2mil BackGround Checks (half of the actual 14.4mil number), we're still talking about 0.05% of gun sales from last year assumed to have committed 100% of those deaths...  We assume that to favor YOUR numbers...  In order to favor mine, I could say that some of the guns used to commit those crimes were bought the year before...

And Fareed's solution is to get rid of the guns.  I imagine his solution to the drug problem would be to get rid of drugs.  Tell us again Fareed...  how is the War on Drugs going???

Terry

Yes, that was his solution. He also spelled out how it worked for other countries, so your correlation to the war on drugs is pretty insignificant. 
If we could see these many waves that flow through clouds and sunken caves...

Offline gah

  • Dans et hors du foyer, le temps tourne le temps, élastiques virages
  • Gamehendge
  • ***
  • Posts: 17004
  • Karma: 689
  • Gender: Male
  • The circus is the place for me....
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #398 on: December 20, 2012, 04:46:39 PM »
wild leaps of logic and made up statistics.  well done.

There were 14.4+ million gun background check in the US in 2011.  This doesn't include all sales.  It should be adjusted for purchases by those that have already had a background check, and for adjusted again for denied checks.  It should also be adjusted for sales outside of the jurisdiction of the law (loop-holes at gun-shows, etc).

There were 8500+ murders by firearms in US in 2011.

That comes out to 0.000596, or less that 99.9%.  Yes, I assume that all of those murders were committed with a gun sold in 2011.

Terry


ETA, if we take a guess and say that only HALF of those 14.4+ resulted in a new gun being sold, that still comes out to 0.00119, or 99.88%.

how many were used in a violent crime that didn't end in murder?    how many in suicides?  how many were rifles with a legitimate use besides the killing of humans?

"The number of deaths by firearms in the United States was 32,000 last year. Around 11,000 were gun homicides."

"Almost 20,000 Americans die each year using guns to commit suicide — a method that is much more successful than other forms of suicide."

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

Also, pretty straight forward op ed piece from Fareed Zakaria from the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-the-solution-to-gun-violence-is-clear/2012/12/19/110a6f82-4a15-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_story.html?tid=pm_pop

Thanks!  Based on those numbers (32,000) vs. the 7.2mil BackGround Checks (half of the actual 14.4mil number), we're still talking about 0.05% of gun sales from last year assumed to have committed 100% of those deaths...  We assume that to favor YOUR numbers...  In order to favor mine, I could say that some of the guns used to commit those crimes were bought the year before...

And Fareed's solution is to get rid of the guns.  I imagine his solution to the drug problem would be to get rid of drugs.  Tell us again Fareed...  how is the War on Drugs going??? 

Terry

Dude. Smoke a bowl, have a beer or do whatever you need to do to relax.

I'm not sure how this:
"Instead, why not have government do something much simpler and that has proven successful: limit access to guns."

Turned into "get rid of the guns"

Also, who gives a fuck what the % is that you seem to be so hung up on. You seem to be missing the more important # of 32,000 deaths. You're ok with that high a number of deaths by firearms?
Sometimes we live no particular way but our own.

Offline mbw

  • Gamehendge
  • ****
  • Posts: 16870
  • Karma: 1896
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #399 on: December 20, 2012, 05:48:13 PM »
What about the people who would like to own that gun (to add to their collection, or to blast tree stumps on their private property, or whatever) but can't afford it because some actuary had it effectively priced it out of their range?

Oh God, the horror!!  That's a world I don't want to live in!



*ironic crosspost coming soon.

Offline VDB

  • In the Band
  • ***
  • Posts: 8346
  • Karma: 301
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #400 on: December 20, 2012, 05:51:01 PM »
I agree, you're right. The manufacturers being held liable would limit the number of "big-bangers" produced and sold, but for those that are in the market for such an item because that's the only thing that will get the job done, they'd be willing to pay that larger amount. It wouldn't have to cut into their profits as they'd make up for in price point what they lose in volume.

ETA: so I don't think they'd "quit making the gun", they'd just make less of them, mark it up to make up the difference and cover the liability. We'd have less fo the "big bangers" and only in the hands of those that really "need" them.

Isn't that a "win" for all players???  Manufacturers will still be able to pull in their profit and fewer guns on the street...  All without passing legislation further limiting a law-abiding citizen from obtaining a gun, ie "gun control".

What about the people who would like to own that gun (to add to their collection, or to blast tree stumps on their private property, or whatever) but can't afford it because some actuary had it effectively priced it out of their range? And as you yourself pointed out, Terry, the vast majority of all the people who would like to own that gun are not going to wind up committing heinous, terrible acts with it. But they will have to end up underwriting the recompense paid out to the victims of the lunatics who would use that firearm for evil deeds.

If there are certain guns that are so dangerous that their prices must be jacked way up to cover the inevitable liability, why not just ban the gun outright? How is it fair to keep it available only for the very wealthy -- are they inherently less likely to snap and want to use it to commit mayhem?

Why would you ban a gun that people NEED. Your comment about how is it fair to price people out of buying something to "add to their collection" or "blast tree stumps" both sound like "wants" not needs. If a dangerous gun is necessary, let those that need it, be able to get it.

(But I certainly wouldn't disagree with banning it altogether)

If what we're saying is it's OK to own a gun if you "need" it, but not if you merely "want" it, then shouldn't we instead talk about tightening access to guns on the basis of "need", e.g., threats made against you or demonstrable risks you face, rather than simply how big your bank account is? Because the latter will easily keep guns out of the hands of lower-means people who may need them, but won't do anything to keep them out of the hands of wealthy folks who simply want them.

(I'm not advocating for this particular kind of access control, just pointing out that the gun insurance/liability approach introduces a prevailing factor -- money -- that doesn't really have much to do with the real issues relevant in this discussion as concern gun ownership, use, and harmful outcomes. Unless we're just talking about covering your ass in a lawsuit/"compensating" victims' families with money, which I think is a rather sad and cynical way of achieving balance on the issue.)
there is no explanation
it's all inside your head


de gustibus non disputandum

Offline gah

  • Dans et hors du foyer, le temps tourne le temps, élastiques virages
  • Gamehendge
  • ***
  • Posts: 17004
  • Karma: 689
  • Gender: Male
  • The circus is the place for me....
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #401 on: December 20, 2012, 06:13:08 PM »
I agree, you're right. The manufacturers being held liable would limit the number of "big-bangers" produced and sold, but for those that are in the market for such an item because that's the only thing that will get the job done, they'd be willing to pay that larger amount. It wouldn't have to cut into their profits as they'd make up for in price point what they lose in volume.

ETA: so I don't think they'd "quit making the gun", they'd just make less of them, mark it up to make up the difference and cover the liability. We'd have less fo the "big bangers" and only in the hands of those that really "need" them.

Isn't that a "win" for all players???  Manufacturers will still be able to pull in their profit and fewer guns on the street...  All without passing legislation further limiting a law-abiding citizen from obtaining a gun, ie "gun control".

What about the people who would like to own that gun (to add to their collection, or to blast tree stumps on their private property, or whatever) but can't afford it because some actuary had it effectively priced it out of their range? And as you yourself pointed out, Terry, the vast majority of all the people who would like to own that gun are not going to wind up committing heinous, terrible acts with it. But they will have to end up underwriting the recompense paid out to the victims of the lunatics who would use that firearm for evil deeds.

If there are certain guns that are so dangerous that their prices must be jacked way up to cover the inevitable liability, why not just ban the gun outright? How is it fair to keep it available only for the very wealthy -- are they inherently less likely to snap and want to use it to commit mayhem?

Why would you ban a gun that people NEED. Your comment about how is it fair to price people out of buying something to "add to their collection" or "blast tree stumps" both sound like "wants" not needs. If a dangerous gun is necessary, let those that need it, be able to get it.

(But I certainly wouldn't disagree with banning it altogether)

If what we're saying is it's OK to own a gun if you "need" it, but not if you merely "want" it, then shouldn't we instead talk about tightening access to guns on the basis of "need", e.g., threats made against you or demonstrable risks you face, rather than simply how big your bank account is? Because the latter will easily keep guns out of the hands of lower-means people who may need them, but won't do anything to keep them out of the hands of wealthy folks who simply want them.

(I'm not advocating for this particular kind of access control, just pointing out that the gun insurance/liability approach introduces a prevailing factor -- money -- that doesn't really have much to do with the real issues relevant in this discussion as concern gun ownership, use, and harmful outcomes. Unless we're just talking about covering your ass in a lawsuit/"compensating" victims' families with money, which I think is a rather sad and cynical way of achieving balance on the issue.)

You made a jump from military style assault rifles to all guns. I have a piece of shit hyundai. I pay less insurance for that than a 21 year old kid driving a porsche, but more than a soccer mom driving a volvo wagon (sorry pg). No one is saying you can't have a car if you can't afford to buy a Porsche. But if you so choose to, or need or want that for whatever reason, then yes you should pay more for it. Money is indeed a prevailing factor in most other aspects of life. I don't see we should create a level playing field for gun ownership.

eta: as for the compensating families being a cynical viewpoint, it is. But it also require the leap and admission that wait a second, sometimes these things are being used for purposes that they weren't intended. Maybe we should try and regulate that.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2012, 06:14:51 PM by goodabouthood »
Sometimes we live no particular way but our own.

Offline VDB

  • In the Band
  • ***
  • Posts: 8346
  • Karma: 301
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #402 on: December 20, 2012, 08:27:59 PM »
OK, so if we are just talking about military-style assault weapons falling into this category, then if they are that dangerous then why not just ban their sale outright? (I agreed to doing as much a few pages back.)

This effective "danger tax" seems like a compromise that should please neither the anti-gun camp (because it doesn't halt the manufacture and sale of these dangerous weapons) nor the pro-gun faction (because it acknowledges their legality but means-tests access to them).
there is no explanation
it's all inside your head


de gustibus non disputandum

Offline twatts

  • Wrote the Book
  • **
  • Posts: 2851
  • Karma: 217
  • Gender: Male
  • PHISH
    • http://db.etree.org/twatts
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #403 on: December 20, 2012, 09:29:43 PM »
do whatever you need to do to relax.

Also, who gives a fuck what the % is that you seem to be so hung up on. You seem to be missing the more important # of 32,000 deaths. You're ok with that high a number of deaths by firearms?

That was good advise.  THanks!

As for the percentage I keep throwing out, I am just pointing out the the hugely vast number of gun sold in the US are not used to commit harm upon other people.  So much so that the 32,000 you point out (which is horrible in itself) is LESS than deaths by many other means, like death in vehicle accidents.

If the incident in CT had involved a motorist purposely killing 26 people by running them over with an SUV, would you be calling for the ban or limitation on SUVs???  I doubt it.  None of would be...

I'm just trying to present guns as just another tool that can be used safely, and I'm trying to persuade you that these horrific incidents shouldn't make us all leap at the chance to throw away a Right we all have (if we don't actually "enjoy" it).

Terry


ETA,  I try to avoid these threads, and now you see why!!!  LOL!!!




« Last Edit: December 20, 2012, 09:32:12 PM by twatts likes ghoti »
Oh! That! No, no, no, you're not ready to step into The Court of the Crimson King. At this stage in your training an album like that could turn you into an evil scientist.

----------------------

I want super-human will
I want better than average skill
I want a million dollar bill
And I want it all in a Pill

Offline susep

  • Gamehendge
  • ****
  • Posts: 10664
  • Karma: 636
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #404 on: December 20, 2012, 09:38:14 PM »
I wonder how the framers would change the 2nd Amendment if they could have foreseen the chaos of their creation?