11 facts about gun violence in the United States

[yallerdawg]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by NH Ethylene (a host of the General Discussion forum).

Source: Vox, edited by Dylan Matthews

One fact:

"Guns don't kill people. Americans with guns kill people." -- Michael Moore

More facts at: http://www.vox.com/cards/gun-violence-facts/gun-homicide-decline-crime-drop

[Hoyt]

1. America First in Murders is OK with gunners, as long as they can arm up and tote in public.

Gun suicides, instances of intimidation, spousal abuse, child shootings, George Zimmermans, etc., are all just the price we have to pay to keep gunners happy.

[EX500rider]

35. "America First in Murders is OK with gunners..."

Except we are actually 108th in homicide rate...so 107 countries have a higher murder rate then the US..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[Hoyt]

95. We are talking gunz here. Your support of the dang things is obvious.

[Matrosov]

2. But they're just thugs, right?

So it's Ok. We don't care about nig.. uhm, thugs. They had it coming, right?

[yallerdawg]

7. "You just can't take the effect, and make it the cause."

[AllyCat]

3. Fact 12: My neighbor just grabbed his dad's gun after an argument and killed himself

I'm sick of the stupid guns. He's a kid. And had ready access. Now he's dead and all his family is mourning.

[Egnever]

8. ugh

Fact 13 my wifes student got in an argument and shot and killed his brother. I knew both of the kids and they were both good kids anger and guns are a bad mixture and everyone gets angry at some point in their life.

This family lost two children in one sitting because of a gun that they could get to. Now they have one child dead and the other facing murder charges. Fuck guns!

[Straw Man]

18. I don't know your definition of "good" ...

Fact 13 my wifes student got in an argument and shot and killed his brother. I knew both of the kids and they were both good kids anger and guns are a bad mixture and everyone gets angry at some point in their life.

... but I wouldn't apply that word to someone who grabs a gun and shoots his brother. I've been angry lots of times in my life, and in many of those instances I had access to a gun. Never did I consider grabbing the gun and shooting somebody.

"Good" is a moral judgement that has no relevance here. You're talking about a seriously disturbed kid.

[Egnever]

21. Absolutely subjective

That said if the gun was not present it would not have ended the way it did.

I interacted with the kids on many occasions they were both in my sons Taekwondo class. Obviously my interaction with them was in a controlled environment but throughout all of my interactions with them they never struck me as anything other than normal well adjusted kids.

Sibling rivalry can get ugly and it was the younger brother who shot the older. There were many rumors that the older kid had been bullying the younger for some time. None of that matters though if you take the gun out the kids are both still alive and at home.

You may never have grabbed a gun when you were angry and shot someone but that is you many people do every single day. Guns make it far too easy to do lethal damage in a situation where you may not be thinking clearly.

[Straw Man]

23. So ...

I interacted with the kids on many occasions they were both in my sons Taekwondo class. Obviously my interaction with them was in a controlled environment but throughout all of my interactions with them they never struck me as anything other than normal well adjusted kids.

... you knew them only casually and socially. In other words, you didn't really know them.

I'm sticking with my assessment: There are disturbed and violent people in the world, but we don't use their behavior as a rationale for restricting the rights and freedoms of everyone. If we did, we wouldn't let anybody study martial arts, for example. Why teach people to deliver potentially lethal kicks to the head? Who knows when some kid might snap and do his brother in with a roundhouse kick?

[Egnever]

25. You think the chances of someone dying from a round house are equal to the chances of a gun?

That is so ludicrous I don't even know where to begin.

[Straw Man]

26. No. Did I say that?

You think the chances of someone dying from a round house are equal to the chances of a gun?

That is so ludicrous I don't even know where to begin.

Are you saying that a roundhouse kick to an unprotected head is safe? Why do you want to allow your children to learn such a potentially deadly skill?

[Thinkingabout]

28. We have the right to frees speech but it does not give the right to

Yell fire in a crowded theater. BTW, Freedom of Speech is the First Amendment.

[Straw Man]

31. Exactly.

We have the right to frees speech but it does not give the right to

Yell fire in a crowded theater. BTW, Freedom of Speech is the First Amendment.

And we have the right to keep and bear arms, but that does not give us the right to shoot people. Nor should we bar people from studying martial arts just because of the possibility that a disgruntled student might deliver an unauthorized boot to the head.

[Egnever]

33. Comparatively absolutely

Thousands of mixed martial arts fights per year and in a 7 year period 12 deaths. 12 death in fights where people are highly trained at effective kick boxing.

http://archive.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/a-look-at-deaths-in-mixed-martial-arts-and-kickboxing-since-07-b99385809z1-282478941.html

At least 12 mixed martial arts fighters and kickboxers have died worldwide since 2007, competing in bouts or preparing for them, according to a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel review. Here is a look at the deaths.

The idea the dangers can be compared is laughable.

As to why someone would want to teach their children such a dangerous skill.

Many things come with that skill training. Including the idea that you don't need a gun to protect yourself.

The incident I referred to could have been easily avoided by securing the gun in the house instead of having it freely available. Unfortunately because of the ridiculous gun culture in this country too many see them as something cool to play with instead of the lethal weapons that they are.

You may not but you are vastly outnumbered by morons that do. One need only take a trip to you tube to see how incredibly stupid people are when it comes to guns and their use.

Morons a plenty all over that video.

[Straw Man]

38. C'mon now.

Leave those goalposts be. You're telling me how many deaths occurred in sanctioned fights. Can you tell me how many people were killed in streetfights by assailants that had some martial arts training?

Despite your persistent efforts to put words in my mouth, I never said the number of deaths was comparable. What I said is that the potential exists, and you are abetting it by providing your children with that training. Yes, it is in a controlled environment, and yes, martial arts training offers much more than a means for delivering violent injury and death. The same is true for firearms training.

I teach firearms safety courses. We teach that securing a gun is fundamental. You can make safe storage a law, but you can't force people to adhere to it. The best you can do is educate them.

You deride the "ridiculous gun culture" in this country, but you base your characterization on YouTube videos? Hardly empirical. I can find plenty of YouTube videos of people doing stupid and dangerous things with motor vehicles, power tools, and alcohol. I don't advocate bans on any of those things.

Where is this "vast army of morons" to which you refer. I am in shooting environments on a weekly basis, and I don't see them. The behavior you describe doesn't come from the "gun culture" as I know it. It comes from people whose only exposure to firearms is what they see on television and in movies: example after example of poor and unsafe gun-handling, technical inaccuracies, and outright lies.

[Egnever]

71. You nailed it right here

You can make safe storage a law, but you can't force people to adhere to it.

All the silliness of how it is the law in your state is just that, because of the one sentence you posted.

And you can compare the death rate to cars but it is a ridiculous comparison. Our society could not function without cars as it is currently we could very easily do without guns. I am all for the day we all have driverless cars, because it will mitigate many needless deaths as well.

As far as basing it on you tube it is just one easy way to show the stupidity of a huge portion of gun owners. Did you even look at it? it is example after example of not only piss poor gun safety but people chuckling the whole time they are putting themselves and others around them in danger.

If people actually respected guns I would have very little problem with them but the vast majority of the people I have interacted with that have guns view them as entertainment and use them with that mindset. Leaving them laying around loaded or doing other equally stupid shit, and then they get mad and shoot someone or themselves or worse they play with them and shoot someone unintentionally through negligence.

[deathrind]

94. No, you cannot...

Enforce a "safe storage" law.

"You can make safe storage a law, but you can't force people to adhere to it."

However what you can do is make the penalties very strict for failure to safely store a weapon. At the very least involuntary manslaughter should be the charge for a child finding a gun and killing themselves or someone else. Calling this type of event a "tragic accident" needs to stop.

[Straw Man]

99. What's silly about adhering to the law?

All the silliness of how it is the law in your state is just that, because of the one sentence you posted.

And your solution is -- more laws? Explain how that will work.

It might surprise you, but most people do adhere to laws when they feel the laws are reasonable and necessary for public safety. Safe storage laws that make it impossible to have access to a loaded firearm for home defense are rightly seen as unreasonable, as are laws that require unannounced home inspections for enforcement.

As far as basing it on you tube it is just one easy way to show the stupidity of a huge portion of gun owners. Did you even look at it? it is example after example of not only piss poor gun safety but people chuckling the whole time they are putting themselves and others around them in danger.

I've seen it and others like it. How many instances did you see? Do you know how many gun owners there are in America? Your "huge portion" is nothing of the kind. YouTube is a cesspool of idiotic behavior of all kinds. It is not representative of the American public as a whole.

If people actually respected guns I would have very little problem with them but the vast majority of the people I have interacted with that have guns view them as entertainment and use them with that mindset. Leaving them laying around loaded or doing other equally stupid shit, and then they get mad and shoot someone or themselves or worse they play with them and shoot someone unintentionally through negligence.

If that is the kind of behavior you see regularly from people you know, you need to give some serious thought to finding a different group of people to hang around with.

[Egnever]

102. Which is it?

the criminals will just ignore the law or whats silly about laws that criminals will just ignore?

You seem to be arguing both sides

[Straw Man]

105. Which is what?

the criminals will just ignore the law or whats silly about laws that criminals will just ignore?

You seem to be arguing both sides

You're the one who said the the only thing keeping me from buying guns illegally was my "honesty." Ypu used that as evidence that the laws are ineffectual. And now you're asking for more laws, supposedly to crack down on criminal behavior. I'll adhere to those too, but that will get us nowhere, because I'm not the problem, you see.

Don't you see the folly of limiting the behavior of everyone but the criminal?

[Egnever]

107. limiting the behavior of everyone but the criminal

that is NRA group speak scarcity trickles all the way down the chain. Many people weren't criminals until they were.

I don't think you are the problem I believe you when you say that you are a responsible gun owner. What I don't buy is the idea that most gun owners are. I think a lot of them think they are but few really are. I think many gun owners think because they haven't shot someone they are a responsible gun owner.

I want to know that when you buy a gun you are taking responsibility for that gun (not you personally) that if something happens with that gun there is no mistaking it was your gun and that you were responsible for it and i want you held responsible for the damage that was done. If you don't have a registration for a gun I don't want you having one period if you have a gun on you that is not registered to you I want it confiscated and I want you penalized for having it in your possession.

None of that would effect you in any way if you are the person you say you are and I believe you are. You would register your guns responsibly and go about doing your thing.

I don't think for a second that doing that would eliminate all gun violence or all illegal guns but it would be a whole lot easier to get them off the streets.

[Straw Man]

109. Exactly.

that is NRA group speak scarcity trickles all the way down the chain. Many people weren't criminals until they were.

OK -- so you want to make it harder for responsible people to own firearms so that there won't be as many for criminals to steal? And you want to preemptively take away rights from people who aren't criminals because they might someday become criminals?

What kind of group-speak is that?

I don't think you are the problem I believe you when you say that you are a responsible gun owner. What I don't buy is the idea that most gun owners are. I think a lot of them think they are but few really are. I think many gun owners think because they haven't shot someone they are a responsible gun owner.

And you base this on your own personal experience of gun owners, which is (a) limited, and (b) atypical.

I want to know that when you buy a gun you are taking responsibility for that gun (not you personally) that if something happens with that gun there is no mistaking it was your gun and that you were responsible for it and i want you held responsible for the damage that was done.

Guess what? When somebody does something irresponsible with a gun, that person is responsible for the damage that was done with it. If someone steals my gun, I'm no longer responsible for it. The only way your registration scenario accomplishes anything is if (a) I give my gun to someone who is irresponsible or a criminal, (b) that person commits a crime with it, (c) that person is apprehended, and (d) that person has my gun in his/her possession when he/she is apprehended. That's a lot of conditions to meet.

None of that would effect you in any way if you are the person you say you are and I believe you are. You would register your guns responsibly and go about doing your thing.

As I've told you, I already do -- the handguns, as required by law. Now there is talk in NY about a ban on all semi-autos, which are far and away the most popular and numerous handguns in the world today. If such a thing were to pass, I would have no choice but to comply. They know where I live.

I would be a lot more comfortable with talk of registration on the whole if it wasn't coming from the mouths of people who advocate such bans. As it is, I see no reason to compromise with people whose idea of meeting halfway is to only force you to take one step backwards rather than two.

[Egnever]

111. Dont know where you are getting I am preemptively taking rights away from people

By requiring they register their guns?

You have stated already you are already required to do so where you live. Making those registrations accessible to an easy search is not taking away your rights.

Guess what? When somebody does something irresponsible with a gun, that person is responsible for the damage that was done with it. If someone steals my gun, I'm no longer responsible for it. The only way your registration scenario accomplishes anything is if (a) I give my gun to someone who is irresponsible or a criminal, (b) that person commits a crime with it, (c) that person is apprehended, and (d) that person has my gun in his/her possession when he/she is apprehended. That's a lot of conditions to meet.

Making excuses as to how you can get around it is not an argument against it. I find your scenarios constant reliance on gun crimes always being stolen guns to be far fetched. I find it even more far fetched if the chances of stolen guns being traced back to their original owner was easier to accomplish.

[Straw Man]

113. From you.

Dont know where you are getting I am preemptively taking rights away from people

By requiring they register their guns?

You've already said that in your ideal world, there would be no guns. Why should I see your insistence on a registry as anything but a way to get to that goal? I've already explained how it would be of little or no use in controlling crime.

Making excuses as to how you can get around it is not an argument against it.

It isn't? So you're in favor of passing easily-circumvented laws that will do nothing against the behavior of criminals? Why, unless it's an incremental step toward an overall ban, something that you've already said you'd like to see.

I find your scenarios constant reliance on gun crimes always being stolen guns to be far fetched.

Either they're stolen guns or trafficked guns. For the most part, people committing crimes are already "prohibited persons." Anyone selling such a person a gun is breaking the law.

I find it even more far fetched if the chances of stolen guns being traced back to their original owner was easier to accomplish.

That makes absolutely no sense. You're saying that criminals wouldn't steal guns if there was a way to trace guns back to their original owner? But there is: the serial number, as reported to the police by the theft victim. Yet criminals continue to steal guns. It's not the only way they get guns, but it's one of the biggies.

[Egnever]

114. You keep repeating things as if that makes them different

But there is: the serial number, as reported to the police by the theft victim

Which again requires the theft victim to report it. Something most people don't bother with because of the whole they can't take my guns bullshit. Requiring the registration to be compulsory eliminates that. As it is currently if the gun is not reported you can't do a thing about it unless it is someone who is already bared from having a gun. It would also put a big dent in the trafficking.

Pretty easy to look at this though and notice every single one of the states with the highest rates of death by gun has no registration requirement...funny that.

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death-by-gun-top-20-states-with-highest-rates/2/

[jack_krass]

46. They're not trying to kill each other

[malaise]

59. +1,000 n/t

[onehandle]

4. Cue gun apologists to defend their cult and blame the 'urban' factor. nt

[AllyCat]

63. See post 6 below. You were right!!

[flamin lib]

5. A favorite saying among gun rights people is that we always claim that 'blood will run in the

streets' with every loosening of gun laws and are always wrong. Truth is that blood is already running in the streets every day. How much worse must it get to make the gun rights people see it?

[hack89]

6. Nonsense

gun violence in America is very concentrated geographically - the vast majority of Americans live in areas with little violent crime. How about we focus on those areas where the violence is and apply specific solutions to very specific problems.

For starters lets focus the criminal justice system on violent offenders and have them put away for a very long time. Use a gun to commit a crime and go away even longer. Empty the jails of non-violent drug offenders and focus like a laser on violent people.

[forthemiddle]

11. +1

[yallerdawg]

19. Why don't we do what we say we are going to do?

Our Democratic Party Platform

Preventing Gun Violence

With 33,000 Americans dying every year, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence.

While responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe.

To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM's)—off our streets.

We will fight back against attempts to make it harder for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to revoke federal licenses from law breaking gun dealers, and ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists, intimate partner abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health issues.

There is insufficient research on effective gun prevention policies, which is why the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must have the resources it needs to study gun violence as a public health issue.

[hack89]

42. Only disagree with two of them

AWB and changing PLCAA. Others are fine. And even then an AWB would not impact me - it is not retroactive so I can keep my AR-15s.

Do you accept the party's position that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right?

[yallerdawg]

45. I definitely don't agree with...

the rightwing NRA talking point we want to take away and ban all guns if we want common sense gun safety reform.

I do not agree with ignoring half of the 2nd Amendment a) as if it doesn't exist or b) like we have no idea what a "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." could possibly mean in relation to the 18th century and now here in the 21st century.

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

We have certain inalienable rights indicated in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution that supersede governments, but gun ownership is definitely not one of them.

[hack89]

52. Fortunately you are on the wrong side of the law and public opinion

An individual right to keep and bear arms will be with us for a very long time. You certainly will not see the Democratic party trying to change that

[yallerdawg]

55. Depends entirely on who wins this election...

and who is nominated and approved to the Supreme Court.

"An individual right to keep and bear arms" as in DC vs Heller was just an "opinion" and NOT divine intervention.

She may not be coming to get your guns - but she is coming!

[hack89]

56. Hillary will be good for gun owners - just like Obama

Why do you think I am supporting her and voted twice for Obama?

[yallerdawg]

57. Good!

Hillary Clinton will Fight for Common Sense Solutions to Reduce Gun Violence

1. Fight for comprehensive background checks:

• She will advocate for comprehensive federal background check legislation.

• She will close the “Charleston loophole,” which allows any gun sale to proceed if a background check is not completed within three days.

2. Hold dealers and manufacturers fully accountable if they endanger Americans:

• She will repeal the gun industry’s unique immunity protection due to lobbying by the NRA.

• She will revoke the licenses of bad dealers, such as those that knowingly supply guns to straw purchasers and traffickers.

3. Keep guns out of the hands of potential terrorists, domestic abusers, other violent criminals and the severely mentally ill.

• Clinton has said “If you are too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun, period.” She will insist on comprehensive background checks prevent suspected terrorists from buying guns.

• She will support legislation to prohibit all domestic abusers and individuals suffering from severe mental illnesses from buying and possessing guns.

• She will make straw purchasing a federal crime.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factchecks/2016/04/14/hillary-clinton-will-fight-for-common-sense-solutions-to-reduce-gun-violence/

[hack89]

61. I agree with most of them

I have a greater respect for due process than she does apparently but no candidate is ever perfect. I am surprised she (and you) is not aware that straw purchases are already a federal crime.

[yallerdawg]

62. From wiki:

Straw purchases in lawful sales made outside of federally regulated dealerships are not subject to such rules and are legal unless the gun is used in a crime with the prior knowledge of the straw purchaser.

You're good with this, or should it be a federal crime?

Those pesky "loopholes."

[hack89]

65. It is a state issue

All sales the federal government can regulate they already regulate. Private legal intrastate sales don't cross state lines so the federal government has no jurisdiction.

All gun sales that cross state lines in any form must go through a federally licensed gun dealer in order to be legal.

[mwrguy]

9. Those deaths are on your hands, toters.

[Angel Martin]

10. 30K traffic deaths per year

I blame all those who ignore the danger to others and continue to own automobiles and drive.

And I blame all auto manufacturers for producing their deadly machines.

[JanMichael]

12. False comparison. Except for the fact that auto makers killed the streetcars in the USA.

But still a nutty comparison.

[LanternWaste]

14. My car is insured. I'm required to pass a test to use it. Every year, I pay to register it with the

My car is insured. I'm required to pass a test to use it. Every year, I pay to register it with the state and to get it inspected.

Either take the analogy all the way, or keep it in your pocket. Using only the little bits that are convenient to your narrative is disingenuous at best... regardless of who you pretend to blame.

[Straw Man]

20. Want to take the analogy all the way?

My car is insured. I'm required to pass a test to use it. Every year, I pay to register it with the state and to get it inspected.

Either take the analogy all the way, or keep it in your pocket. Using only the little bits that are convenient to your narrative is disingenuous at best... regardless of who you pretend to blame.

OK, let's see ... I had to have a clean background check and five character references to get my carry permit. Did you have to do that for your driver's license?

My CCW is only valid in my home state a few others. Your DL is good in every state of the Union.

I can't sell a firearm without paying a fee to a licensed dealer to process the transaction. Outside my home state, I can't buy a firearm from a non-dealer without having it shipped to a licensed dealer in my home state.

Every handgun that I purchase must be registered with the state. I pay a fee for each and every one. If I sell a handgun, I must pay a fee to de-register it. For cars, registration is only necessary if you wish to put the car on the road. I know people who own multiple vehicles but only register one at a time. This cannot be done with handguns in my state.

Spare us the lecture about cherry-picking analogies, OK? It's just too ... disingenuous.

[Egnever]

24. Not very honest

"Outside my home state, I can't buy a firearm from a non-dealer without having it shipped to a licensed dealer in my home state."

That is intentionally misleading.

It is trivial to buy a gun in most states in the union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

And the only one making you ship it is your own honesty. It would be trivial to go to another state say mine Nevada and purchase any damn gun you wanted and bring it home.

The vast majority of states don't have anything close to the restrictions you mention. If they did you might have a valid argument as it is you are choosing as an example probably the most restrictive state laws in the whole country and certainly not the norm in the US.

[Straw Man]

29. I beg your pardon?

"Outside my home state, I can't buy a firearm from a non-dealer without having it shipped to a licensed dealer in my home state."

That is intentionally misleading.

It is quite literally true. How is the truth misleading?

And the only one making you ship it is your own honesty.

You mean my adherence to the law? Some people choose to adhere to the law and some don't. What magical laws do you advocate that would guarantee adherence?

It would be trivial to go to another state say mine Nevada and purchase any damn gun you wanted and bring it home.

Trivial and illegal. How do you propose to stop this?

The vast majority of states don't have anything close to the restrictions you mention. If they did you might have a valid argument as it is you are choosing as an example probably the most restrictive state laws in the whole country and certainly not the norm in the US.

I'm not "choosing" anything. What I'm describing to you are the laws under which I live.

Surely you are aware that motor vehicle laws also vary from state to state. I have a suggestion: Let's not allow people from rural states to drive in states that have large urban centers. Their licensing requirements aren't sufficiently rigorous, after all.

Shall we keep extending the analogy?

[Egnever]

36. Pretty simple

What magical laws do you advocate that would guarantee adherence?

Ban the hell out of them. They serve no useful purpose in society that can't be met in other ways in the overwhelming majority of circumstances.

[Straw Man]

39. And the truth comes out.

Ban the hell out of them. They serve no useful purpose in society that can't be met in other ways in the overwhelming majority of circumstances.

Good luck with that Constitutional amendment. And just for the record, you acknowledge that all the pious crap about "reasonable restrictions" and "commonsense laws" is just a smokescreen for the ban agenda, right?

[Angel Martin]

40. but, but, but...

they keep telling me that "no-one" wants to ban and confiscate firearms... they just want "reasonable" restrictions...

Are you saying gun confiscators are not being honest about their actual hidden agenda ? I'm shocked !

[Egnever]

69. I don't know who they are

I will tell you flat out I would be more than pleased if every privately owned gun on the planet was gone tomorrow.

That of course will never happen sadly, baring that I am for any regulation that makes them more difficult to own.

I am sick to death of people that are afraid to walk down the street without a gun putting the rest of us in danger.

[Duckhunter935]

73. That's their common sense restriction

[Egnever]

81. No that is what would do it effectively

[Duckhunter935]

84. So you admit

All of the regulations that are being proposed would not be effective.

[Egnever]

87. nope can't admit that

I am not aware of all the regulations being proposed.

I will say it again although you already saw it. I want a traceable database of gun ownership for each and every gun I want gun owners responsible for their weapons. I would prefer they were banned completely but I would settle for a database of ownership.

I reject anything less. I want gun owners responsible for their guns.

[Duckhunter935]

88. Nope to a database

California already tried that to confiscate legal weapons that were retroactively made to be illegal.

[Egnever]

90. We shall see

of course it comes back to the Gubment coming to get us conspiracy.

[Straw Man]

96. Yes, we shall.

of course it comes back to the Gubment coming to get us conspiracy.

Which is exactly what you are advocating. Remember?

[Egnever]

98. It would make me happy

and it would most certainly eliminate a ton of needless deaths. But I don't see it as a realistic answer. There are legitimate uses of guns I have zero issue with hunters assuming they are not reckless or ignoring conservation laws.

Again if guns were all registered and traceable in an easily searchable database and people were held responsible for the guns they purchased I would be much more inclined to buy the responsible gun owner spiel but they aren't and I am not.

[Straw Man]

101. So ...

... you're backing off this statement?

Ban the hell out of them.

[Egnever]

104. Not a bit

I would prefer that. They are useless as far as I am concerned and serve only as a threat in the world I live in I will never own a gun which by definition means all other guns put me at risk that would not be there if not for others desire to have them.

So for me a flat out ban is preferable to anything else.

Still I recognize that there are legitimate uses for fire arms and while I would prefer a world without them I recognize others desires to have them and since I am a democrat by nature I am willing to compromise even though it puts myself and my family in danger that otherwise would not be there.

So what I am ok with is full registration of all firearms and penalties for their use in crimes or confiscation and penalties if there is no registration of the firearm. If that was in place I would be content that the responsible gun owner line was something more than a line given lip service by people until they shot someone and couldn't claim it anymore or couldn't get away with it.

You personally might be a very responsible gun owner and there is no doubt in my mind there are millions out there that treat guns with the respect they deserve but there are also millions that view them as some sort of toy.

In my mind if you are responsible enough to carry someones death in your hand you should be responsible enough to own it. Anything short of that I find lacking. The game playing with gun shows and private sales is not responsible ownership by my thinking.

[Duckhunter935]

72. "Nobody wants to take your guns"

Mmmm, nobody is saying that.

[Egnever]

80. He asked what would guarentee adherence

That would do it.

As far as I am concerned they could all disappear tomorrow and I would not shed a tear. That said I recognize others desire to own them and the great thing about freedom is people get to do things you don't agree with.

What I don't buy into is the idea that guns should be a free for all because second amendment.

I want every gun registered and not on a piece of paper. I want them in a searchable database by serial number and I don't give a rats about boogyman conspiracy theories about da gubment coming to get you and your guns once they have the database. If that is going to happen it will be projected so far in advance in todays world of twitter and 24 hour news sites as to make any looking up people by name irrelevant. There isn't enough manpower to come and get the guns fast enough that a database would make any noticeable difference in.


You want em fine register them and make them traceable be responsible for the guns you purchase and if you cant agree to that then fuck off.

[Duckhunter935]

83. Weapons are not a free for all

Thousands of federal, state and local regulations. Not to mention, every retail seller must be federally licensed.

[Egnever]

85. none of which can be in a database that traces ownership

[Duckhunter935]

86. Records are kept for all new weapons sales

To the original owner. The states can do more if they want too.

[Egnever]

89. Yea thats a good story.

This one is better though...
https://www.gq.com/story/inside-federal-bureau-of-way-too-many-guns

So here's a news flash, from Charlie: “We ain't got a registration system. Ain't nobody registering no damn guns.”
There is no national database of guns. We have no centralized record of who owns all the firearms we so vigorously debate, no hard data regarding how many people own them, how many of them are bought or sold, or how many even exist.

The National Tracing Center is not allowed to have centralized computer data.

“That's the big no-no,” says Charlie.

That's been a federal law, thanks to the NRA, since 1986: No searchable database of America's gun owners. So people here have to use paper, sort through enormous stacks of forms and record books that gun stores are required to keep and to eventually turn over to the feds when requested. It's kind of like a library in the old days—but without the card catalog. They can use pictures of paper, like microfilm (they recently got the go-ahead to convert the microfilm to PDFs), as long as the pictures of paper are not searchable. You have to flip through and read. No searching by gun owner. No searching by name.

[Straw Man]

97. Do tell.

He asked what would guarentee adherence

That would do it.

Because the Volstead Act worked so well, didn't it? Alcoholic beverages disappeared overnight. For 13 years in America, no liquor was produced and no one got drunk.

You want em fine register them and make them traceable be responsible for the guns you purchase and if you cant agree to that then fuck off.

That will work. Everyone knows that you can't steal a registered gun, nor can anyone be killed with it.

Isn't magic wonderful?

[Egnever]

100. Your ridiculous comparisons are entertaining I will give you that.

If your gun is stolen you report it. Immediately or as soon as you have knowledge of it. You are a responsible gun owner are you not? Why is that magic?

Guns that are in your possession that are not registered to you are confiscated period end of story. Register any gun that is legal that you want. Yup I am going to want a full ban on things like automatic weapons or high capacity clips. But have all the rifles and hand guns you want as long as they are registered to you. I also like what california is trying to do with the micro stamps on casings.

Why is that a problem? You are a responsible gun owner.

[Straw Man]

103. You still haven't told us what registration will achieve.

If your gun is stolen you report it. Immediately or as soon as you have knowledge of it. You are a responsible gun owner are you not? Why is that magic?

Yes -- I'd report it even if it weren't registered. But how does registration help? My long guns don't have to be registered, but I'll give the police the serial numbers when I make the report, in order to possibly get the guns back if they are recovered. But I won't hold my breath waiting, because the likelihood is low. The fact that the gun is registered will do nothing to help recover it.

Guns that are in your possession that are not registered to you are confiscated period end of story.

If someone is in possession of a stolen gun, a check of the serial numbers will reveal that fact. This doesn't require registration; it simply requires that victims of gun theft notify the police of the serial numbers of the stolen guns. If the person holding the gun is a felon or other prohibited person, that person goes to jail regardless of the provenance of the gun, registered or not. Those are the only two situations in which confiscation would serve the interest of public safety, and neither one requires registration.

Yup I am going to want a full ban on things like automatic weapons or high capacity clips.

Automatic firearms are already tightly controlled at the federal level. What constitutes "high capacity," in your opinion? I'll bet it's a different number than the one I have in mind.

I also like what california is trying to do with the micro stamps on casings.

Ah, microstamping. Guess what? It doesn't work on revolvers, which would instantly become more popular with criminals. It can be easily defeated with simple hand tools. It would encourage criminals to pick up empty brass off the ground at gun ranges and strew it around their crime scenes, giving police dozens of red herrings to follow in their efforts to solve crimes. And in cases where brass found at a crime scene is traceable, it will often simply lead back to the last legal owner, i.e. the person who the gun was stolen from.

Keep 'em coming ...

[Egnever]

106. I have said many times what it would acheive

It would hold gun owners responsible for the guns they own.

The fact that the gun is registered will do nothing to help recover it.

Because there is not a searchable database to do so....

If someone is in possession of a stolen gun, a check of the serial numbers will reveal that fact. This doesn't require registration; it simply requires that victims of gun theft notify the police of the serial numbers of the stolen guns. If the person holding the gun is a felon or other prohibited person, that person goes to jail regardless of the provenance of the gun, registered or not. Those are the only two situations in which confiscation would serve the interest of public safety, and neither one requires registration.

That requires someone to report the gun as stolen where if all guns could be traced to their owners it would be immediately apparent the gun did not belong in this persons hands.

The rest of it is we can get around it nonsense that a responsible gun owner would not try to do so would have no effect on them yet would still make it much easier to track criminal use despite its flaws.

[Straw Man]

108. No, you haven't.

It would hold gun owners responsible for the guns they own.

How would it do that?

The fact that the gun is registered will do nothing to help recover it.

Because there is not a searchable database to do so....

Exactly what do you think a searchable database does? It doesn't tell the cops where the gun is. It doesn't affect the thief because (a) in most cases he's someone who isn't allowed to have guns anyway, and (b) if he is caught with my gun, the fact that the serial number is on the "hot" sheet -- which is searchable, BTW -- will cook his goose and ideally get my gun back to me.

That requires someone to report the gun as stolen where if all guns could be traced to their owners it would be immediately apparent the gun did not belong in this persons hands.

Why on earth wouldn't someone report a gun stolen? Wouldn't you want at least a chance at getting your gun back?

The rest of it is we can get around it nonsense that a responsible gun owner would not try to do so would have no effect on them yet would still make it much easier to track criminal use despite its flaws.

How would microstamping "make it easier to track the criminal"? It's not a microchip emitting a GPS signal. Two states have already tried "ballistic fingerprinting," which is essentially the same thing: tracking a gun by marks left on the ejected brass. Both states -- New York and Maryland -- abandoned the program because it was expensive and failed to solve any crimes. The only difference between their programs and microstamping is that microstamping will shift the cost off the gov't and onto the manufacturers and consumers of guns. Who cares if it doesn't work; if it screws with gun people, you like it, right?

[Thinkingabout]

30. Just as everyone is not capable of operating a vehicle, likewise not everyone is

Capable of possessing a weapon.

[Straw Man]

34. I wouldn't argue with that.

Just as everyone is not capable of operating a vehicle, likewise not everyone is

Capable of possessing a weapon.

There is already the category of "prohibited persons" who are legally barred from weapons possession: people with felony convictions, history of commitment for serious mental illness, etc.

I've always felt that it's far too easy to get a driver's license. It is proven to me on an almost daily basis on the road.

[Duckhunter935]

75. Yep, back in the day

We took drivers ed in school

[beevul]

66. False.

I'm required to pass a test to use it.

You're required to pass a test to use it in PUBLIC, not in private, and certainly not to own.

Every year, I pay to register it with the state and to get it inspected.

Generally not required simply to own or to use a vehicle on private property.

[Duckhunter935]

76. Pesky facts again

[Skittles]

27. OMG

you folk are as predicable as a clock.

[oneshooter]

91. As are you.

[hack89]

13. I also drink beer - are drunk driving deaths my responsibility too?

just wondering.

[mwrguy]

16. Is beer designed soley to kill?

[hack89]

17. Designed solely to intoxicate. Plays a major role in addiction, violence and sexual assault.

the negative impact on society has to be at least as bad as guns.

The fact that many use it responsibility does not excuse them from the actions of others, does it?

[TheHound]

41. I would argue that alcohol has a much greater negative impact on society

Than firearms. Each year almost 3 times as many people die from alcohol-related causes as firearms. https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics. And this is just deaths.

[Straw Man]

22. No.

No. Beer, like all alcoholic beverages, is designed to make people stupid and reckless. It's called "inebriation," and without it, no one would drink such beverages. Even "social" drinkers are chasing a buzz.

Should such beverages be available to the public? Well, most people seem to be able to handle a little bit of mild mind-altering. Are their hands stained by the blood spilled by drunken drivers?

Your call.

[Duckhunter935]

77. Is there a good purpose for alcohol?

Seems to me it just causes death, illnesses and too many problems

[friendly_iconoclast]

58. Any other groups you'd like to blame as a whole for the actions of individual members?

[mwrguy]

68. No, just gun humpers and their enablers in the NRA

[friendly_iconoclast]

112. Do you believe some sort of collective punishment would be in order for the 'responsible' groups?

[sheshe2]

15. The United States

Is an embarrassment.

[former9thward]

32. To you.

[EX500rider]

37. The US is ranked 108th in homicide rates....are the other 107 countries more of a embarrassment?

[maxsolomon]

47. Homicide rates, not Homicide by Firearm.

Look at our neighbors on this chart, where we're ranked 13th. How proud do you feel now?

[EX500rider]

48. Oh, are you more dead some how by firearms then other means?

Since the overall homicide rate in the US is only 3.9 per 100,000 from all causes I kinda doubt your chart showing a rate of 10.6 is correct...course it doesn't really say what it tracks with that rate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

For instance the US rate is 3.9 Vs the Mexican rate of 15.7, not on a par as according to that chart.

[maxsolomon]

49. topic of the thread is homicides by firearm

not overall homicide rate. i'm not playing your whataboutist game.

chart's from here, same source as yours: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

[EX500rider]

51. Still if the overall rate is 3.9 the firearm rate is less then that...

....so your chart appears to be about something else perhaps...lol

[maxsolomon]

53. My chart is overall firearm deaths/100,000

it includes suicides. it provides a breakout: homicide/suicide/unintentional/undetermined. 3.43/100,000 firearm homicides.

yours is overall homicides/100,000. 3.9 > 3.43. 88% of our homicides are by firearm.

the Vox graphic is homicides by firearm compared to other "rich" countries.

[Egnever]

70. Thread end right there

88% of our homicides are by firearm

Yea theres no problem there at all.

[yallerdawg]

54. I agree with you.

Now, compared to Somalia and Syria we look pretty good.

But those are not our rich peers, are they?

Gun homicides are considerably more common in the US than in peer countries. There were 35.5 gun homicides per million people in the US in 2013, compared to only 4.9 per million in Canada, and 0.93 per million in the UK, according to Global Burden of Disease study.

http://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare/#

[hunter]

43. Piss on guns.

Gun fetishes are nasty.

[TheHound]

44. Many fetishes are nasty

[hunter]

50. Do you have guns?

Why?

I've shot animals I've eaten but I didn't like it.

Now I'm mostly vegetarian.

I can't imagine any human who I'd care to shoot, not even those who might deserve it.

In my own experience once the guns come out everything is FUBAR.

In rough situations of triage I've been the coldest calculating autistic spectrum son of a bitch you've ever met.

Would you like to hear a story?

[friendly_iconoclast]

60. And *there* is the problem with approaches like yours: "In my own experience..."

[hunter]

64. Tell me your own experience then.

My psychiatrist thinks I've got some serious PTSD shit going on.

But if you ask me, it's not the gun stories, not even the brains on the carpet sort.

You can replace the carpet and cover the blood on the wall with KILZ.

And meds make the night-terrors go away.

[Duckhunter935]

79. A fairly normal existence

Although I don't hunt, I do enjoy the sport of target shooting. Have done so for years and have handled weapons without incident for at least the last 30 years. I am trained and have had background checks to obtain a CCL. However I do not normally see the need to carry a weapon.

[hunter]

93. Sure, shooting guns is fun...

... but that's not what we are talking about, is it?

[Duckhunter935]

115. It's the question you asked

[friendly_iconoclast]

110. No one's experiences are universal

[TheHound]

67. I've never shot an animal

You didn't like the shooting part or the eating part?

On edit, I've known a lot of people who hunt for food, including my grandfather and friends from the military, but not sure I could do it myself.

I personally will eat a steak but I don't think I could shoot an animal, and yeah I know that is a bit contradictory.

[hunter]

92. I have dogs, all rescue dogs. They eat meat and meat by-products I buy in big bags at Costco.

I wouldn't expect dogs to be vegetarians.

Yeah, I know that is a bit contradictory.

If someone in my family is serving meat they raised or hunted, or fish they caught, I eat that too.

[The2ndWheel]

74. Out of every million people, 30 are murdered by a gun?

In terms of the large scale, unemotional, human project picture, that is somewhat insignificant. Plus there are more people alive in the US, and the world, every year than the year before, even with the gun murders.

I'm not a gun guy, and if the number was 15 instead of 30 that would be better, but 30 out of every 1,000,000 probably isn't going to be enough to get a huge movement going and sustained. Every country is different. If you add up the other 13 countries on the list, you get a population of about 217.7 million people. The US is at about 324.1 million. The US was founded with a 2nd amendment. However people interpret that particular idea, it's existence is different than that of other countries. Laws can and do change, but rarely easily. Most people don't even know 30 people on an intimate level.

[yallerdawg]

78. Where we are now.

To date in 2016, total number of US gun incidents - 37,650.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

A handful of batteries catch fire, and Samsung recalls every phone they sold! No one died!

But guns are special...

[The2ndWheel]

82. I'm not saying it's a good number

But 37,650 incidents, in a country with 324 million people, isn't a big number. It sucks for the people involved, especially if the incident results in a death, but the strict objective number isn't very high.

We're all prisoners of history in some form or fashion. Batteries weren't put in the constitution. Whatever it meant then, and whatever it means today, guns were. The 2nd amendment was thought up because people back then were prisoners of history, trying to break free of it, the same way people do today. We go from a rock to a hard place, then back to the rock, then back to the hard place. Everyone has their idea of what society should be, and should is always a messy place to be.

[Chemisse]

116. Locking

Discussions about guns are not ordinary allowed in GD.

GUNS
News stories (and related content) from reputable mainstream sources about efforts to strengthen or weaken gun control legislation in any jurisdiction in the United States, national news stories (and related content) from reputable mainstream sources about high-profile gun crimes, and viral political content from social media or blogs that would likely be of interest to a large majority of DU members are permitted under normal circumstances.

Local stories about gun crime and "gun porn" threads showing pictures of guns or discussing the merits of various firearms are not permitted under normal circumstances and should be posted in the Gun Control and RKBA Group.

Open discussion of guns is permitted during very high-profile news events which are heavily covered across all newsmedia.