I've avoided the sensationalist headline on the site, because these data are not "terrifying," i.e., inexplicable; they're more in the realm of "Yes, and -?" For your consideration
Which means you've got data of your own to contradict them. Please feel free to present them at any time.
Fact #11. You know that "new gun smell", you love to snort out of the box? That's actually the penis grease of unwashed Mexican laborers.
No. I'm saying that when you consider the facts that YOU PRESENTED "IN CONTEXT" and not with alarmist dialogue they are hardly alarming. for example. #1 31.5 people killed each day by handguns. You do realize that amounts to little more than ONE person killed in about every other state each day don't you? Hardly alarming.
If the first fact on there is correct that is means that approximately the same people die from gun homicides a day in the US that die in a year in the UK, meaning an uplift of roughly 360% despite only having only x4 the population. In fact, if you take into account all kinds of homicide then the US has nearly triple the murder rate of the UK, and double that of any Western European country, including those permitting gun ownership. Surely these statistic are enough to at least give cause for an analysis of why gun homicide is most likely to happen in the US out of all western countries? People argue that there is no need to consider societal issues, but the statistics don't lie.
Sturm, Ruger has had it's best sales year ever this year, manufacturing and selling over a million firearms.
- See below and El Chup's comments. - 11,500 per year, then. 3.7/100,000 in any given year (2.97, apparently). The risk of dying in a car accident was 11/100,000 in 2009. - Okay - could be an interesting discussion. - Would be interesting to see more details - this could be anything from "I asked a couple random dudes on the internet some weird questions" to a proper study. On it's own, it's at least dubious - Secondly, this could also be a scenario of gang members selling to (hypothetical) gang members, i.e., no legitimate parties involved anyway - You say "unlicensed secondary-market seller", I say "a buddy in my gang". Meh. - Sounds interesting - any details? Is it part of a catch-all paragraph about trafficking? - Which leaves 12 with illegal weapons (well, 11 illegal and 1 unknown) - from the same article, Finland ranks second in # of top 25 shootings (with 2 mentions). Not directly related but still leaves lots of potential. - See Chup's comment - U.S. has ~3x the UK's homicide rate which means they just use different tools (overall higher but the UK compensates) - So?
Topic for a separate thread? Not at all what this one is about, but then once again you didn't read the article. Let's take 'em one at a time, then. Discuss.
Let's take 'em one at a time, then. Discuss. [/QUOTE] To be honest I don't know enough but these two articles from a quick Google search seem to provide a few counterarguments. http://reason.com/blog/2008/10/20/gun-shows-dont-kill-people http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/facts-about-gun-shows
Well, not exactly. If we were using different tools then the murder rate would be the same per 100k people. I'd say that's a significant uplifted. Quite simply, you are three times as likely to get killed by another person in the US then you are the UK or Western Europe. So why is that? It can't just be about guns, because guns are allowed in many parts of Europe. It's got to be about society, and, possibly, availability. For me, the whole "ban guns" knee-jerk misses the whole point of the issue. What is causing the violence? Why concentrate on the tools instead of the cause? You use the word compensate. It seems to me that if guns were banned the murder rate would fall, but possibly not nearly as much as people think. What then? Would people then be willing to have a debate about societal contributors after some nut heads into a prep school with a samurai sword and chops up 15 kids? There is a much deeper problem here in terms of cause. It's crucial that it's not ignored. But it seems to me that it already is, with this once again descending into the old ban/regulate vs second amendment debate.
Okay, both articles are about gun shows, and they do add to the available knowledge. But here's the thing: Are all of the sellers at gun shows licensed dealers? I'd think that would be a controlling factor. Also, I'm assuming all transactions are face-to-face. So the seller is talking to you and getting a read on you; if you strike him as at all twitchy, one assumes he's not going to sell to you, because he doesn't want his gun ending him up on the six o'clock news. Would that be fair? There are no such controls on online sales. So would it be out of place to suggest that there should be tighter regulations on online sales?
Yes, it would. Our government is supposed to be afraid of us. Anything that makes our government afraid of us is perfectly fair game. I don't know if you get that, so let me repeat and clarify it: Washington, D.C., is supposed to fall asleep quaking in their boots, worrying about what garamet and John Castle think of them.
I think there is more chance of finding donut eating rats on Jupiter than there is finding anyone on this planet who is worried about what "John Castle" says.
Fact 3 that 40% of private sales occur of all gun sales can't be proven because it is impossible to keep track of private sales. The New York City hit piece even admits it in several places. It's essentially an assumption and we all know what happens when you assume things. Fact 4 also from the New York City hit piece that 62% of people surveyed agreed to sell guns to people who said they probably couldn't pass a background check, according to the hit piece 77 of 125 sellers agreed to sell the gun. The hit piece then goes on to say: While investigators would need a larger sample to draw meaningful statistical conclusions, investigators did note slight regional differences in the failure rate." In other words their numbers mean jack shit. Fact 5 that 80% of criminals get their guns from the secondary market is just stupid. Of course they do. They steal them or yes even buy them. Criminals can't buy a gun from a gun store because they would fail the background check. (incidentally I would have no problem with a law requiring a private seller get a gun store to conduct a background check on a person buying a gun. I personally would never sell a gun to a private person without that check.) Fact #6 is unbelievably stupid. The list maker attempted to cherry pick a federal law that has the same prison sentence. They got it wrong however you could probably find dozens of federal laws with the same amount of prison time for violating them. It's not as if they must have a different amount of time for each law broken. I found a link that is a little more clear on the subject: http://www.justice.gov/usao/ut/psn/documents/guncard.pdf Livestock: Whoever transports in interstate or foreign commerce any livestock, knowing the same to have been stolen, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/113/2316 As you can see the list maker got it slightly wrong. U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 924(c) concerns using the gun during a crime which will get you anywhere from 5 years to LIFE IN PRISON. 18 USC § 922(d). covers trafficking and gets you ten years. Trafficking in animals that you know are stolen? Up to five years. Can't deal with 7-9 because for some stupid reason I can't get most of the attached sources on the list to open up. I will say on fact 8 and 9 it makes sense since we have way more guns in private hands then other people in other high income countries have. Fact 10? Have no problem with requiring a background check for all buyers even from private sources. The main problem then becomes who holds the paperwork? And for how long must they hold it.
Honest and thoughtful answer, but let me ask you about #8 and #9: Is it just a matter of numbers? "More people have guns, so more people are killed with guns"? Does that make it okay?
Yes there are. I don't know where that "online gun sales" stat comes from...maybe like Craig's list, where you make contact, and arrange a "face to face" meet, but if you buy a firearm from a dealer online, they will not ship it to you. They'll ship it to a local dealer near you where you will go, fill out the paperwork, get your background check, and then pick up your firearm.
Or what garamet says? So you're actually advocating that our government ignore the voice of its constituents? I'd pretend to be surprised, but I don't feel like lying just now.
El Chup has a good point (hey, I give credit where credit is due). Nobody (left or right) seems to interested in discussing the SOCIETAL problems of our high homicide rate. Too many want to ban the tools versus get down to why these tools are being used. As I said before, many of us grew up awash in guns, yet can't consider using them for violence (job related doesn't count). If someone was suicidal they killed themselves. Sad, but better than taking out half the neighborhood with you. It's a given that mental problems aside, too many of us are spoiled, immature, self centered little shit stains. It all starts with the family. Let's not blame the government - government isn't at our dinner table.
To be honest I don't know enough but these two articles from a quick Google search seem to provide a few counterarguments. http://reason.com/blog/2008/10/20/gun-shows-dont-kill-people http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/facts-about-gun-shows[/QUOTE] "Say Bob, I really like that pre '64 Model 70 Winchester of yours." "Aw, its crap. The trigger has been nothing but trouble." "I'll give you that Model 12 shotgun you like and $20 for it." "Done." Two gun sales--no background check. Granted, my Dad and Bob had known each other 5-10 years by that point--and even had a couple business ventures together, so the idea of either of them needing to run a background check on the other is pretty silly.
So....if congress "acts now" 26,000 lives will be saved in the future? Is whoever compiled this list aware of the fact that there are 300,000,000 guns already in America? Not a math wizard, but I'm guessing gun control of the most Draconian measures won't put a dent in gun deaths.
You've been repeating this bit through a few of these threads. So good, so far as it goes, but if that is the purpose, what do we do about weapons used against other civilians? Is there a gun that can only work against government employees?
