patrick.net

I see that you've moved beyond rhetoric and onto some stats call it crazy. Good on you. Those stats of 11K homicides versus 990K self defense instances is impressive. I wonder how many of those self defense instances were a matter of life and death. It would be hard to measure.

Meanwhile, in 2009 in the US according to Wiki, there were 75K gunshot injuries in the US. Of these, 52K were deliberate & 23K were accidents. There were 31K deaths by firearm in 2007, of which 17K were suicides and 12K were not. This 31K deaths is about the same as the number of people killed with cars.

You have stated that people would just use another tool if they didn't have access to guns. I think that some would, and some would not. First there is the desire to kill, and then there is coming up with a plan and going through with it. Guns make the second part easier. I don't think that there are any easy answers regarding legislation, but we should at least recognize that there is a problem, and that guns are part of it.

YesYNot says

I don't think that there are any easy answers regarding legislation, but we should at least recognize that there is a problem, and that guns are part of it.

Maybe. But it is far more important to recognize that people is *the* main problem.

how many people died of a cold, a hang naill, in sky diving accident, these stats do not add anything to this conversation, they detract.

did you guys goto school, what relationship to murders with guns do cars have?

Murder is a legal concept. In the physical world, death is death.

Then murder requires mens rea, which is related only to the mind. Guns and cars both kill. The difference is in the mind of the perpetrator.

None. The is no correlation between car deaths and gun deaths.

The majority of Gun deaths involve murder !

The majority of Car deaths are ACCIDENTS!!

121212 says

the topic of discussion is what again you TROLLS?

I going to start making abrasive,derogatory, & insulting comments to see how many dumbass troll responders will comment.

OH WAIT! I've already started. LOL

Call it Crazy says

Peter P says

In the physical world, death is death.

lmfao, you make nonsensical arguments like a baby

Clearly an accident under law is defined much differently than murder

you can continue playing the fool.

So far not one response to these pathetic comparisons.

121212 says

Clearly an accident under law is defined much differently than murder

So it is a people-problem and not a guns-problem. Then the remedies should center around people and not banning guns.

Call it Crazy says

Gee, I didn't realize a dead body caused by a car accident is different then dead body caused by a firearm... Thanks for helping us see there are different types of dead!!

Call it Crazy -You would think you could figure it out after you posted 100 posts of bullshit car accident stats

One death is Murder and the other is an accident.

Do you have two brain cells to figure this out yet?

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

Peter P says

Self-driving cars can save many lives.

Maybe we need self driving guns, you fool.

robertoaribas says

121212 says

Your a fool.

you're = you are; your = possessive;

like: your idea is that you're for a ban on guns. [I'm not usually the grammarian but you've used the wrong one like 20 times in a row!]

Wow, a spelling flame. So classy.

Call it Crazy says

121212 says

Way more people own cars and use them way more than GUNS.

Your a fool.

Try this:

......"As of 2009, the United States has a population of 307 million people.[5]"

....."According to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics for 2009 there are 254,212,610 registered passenger vehicles."

....."Based on production data from firearm manufacturers,[6] there are roughly 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the United States as of 2010. Of these, about 100 million are handguns.[7]"

Now, back to my chart:

*

I suspect that his initial point is still accurate - that more people do own cars than guns and that they do use the cars more often.

Peter P says

121212 says

Clearly an accident under law is defined much differently than murder

So it is a people-problem and not a guns-problem. Then the remedies should center around people and not banning guns.

Why is it an either-or situation? I'd say both are clearly problems.

Call it Crazy says

Bigsby says

Why is it an either-or situation? I'd say both are clearly problems.

No it's not... a gun doesn't go off by itself when sitting in a box in the closet.

It takes a person to get the ball rolling.... that's the source of the problem!

And that person's actions are facilitated by the ease with which he or she can access weapons that I suspect a great many people on this planet think have no business being kept in say the home of a primary school teacher with a disturbed child or in many other places around the country come to that.

As far as the inanimate objects (guns, cars) are concerned, murders are really the same as accidents. The differences are only in the mind states of those responsible.

Call it Crazy says

There were 32,367 motor vehicle deaths last year. That is approx. 89 PER DAY!!!

Where is your outrage over cars, or are these deaths not as important because they weren't caused by a gun?

Yours is a pointless argument. People do not usually step into a car with the intention of killing someone. How many deaths were caused by someone trying to deliberately kill another person with their vehicle?

Peter P says

As far as the inanimate objects (guns, cars) are concerned, murders are really the same as accidents. The differences are only in the mind states of those responsible.

They are very different and that is reflected in law.

Bigsby says

Yours is a pointless argument. People do not usually step into a car with the intention of killing someone. How many deaths were caused by someone trying to deliberately kill another person with their vehicle?

Intention is in the mind only. So it concerns only people.

The ONLY thing that separates accidents and murders (or various degrees of negligence) is the state of mind.

Bigsby says

They are very different and that is reflected in law.

Yes. And such law involves mens rea. There are gun accidents and car murders too. And the law deals with them as appropriate.

Peter P says

Bigsby says

Yours is a pointless argument. People do not usually step into a car with the intention of killing someone. How many deaths were caused by someone trying to deliberately kill another person with their vehicle?

Intention is in the mind only. So it concerns only people.

If that intention is made real by the ease with which a person can access weapons such as assault rifles, then that is a very real issue of appropriateness of ownership no matter how much you want to make it about people rather than the guns.

Call it Crazy says

Well, at least you're finally admitting that a PERSON was responsible for the killing and NOT the "object" or "tool".

We're making progress....

Oh, BTW, many people have gotten into a vehicle with the intention to kill with it.

And many more have picked up a gun... What is your point? Of course a person is responsible for pulling the trigger, but society is responsible for making it easy for that person to have the gun in the first place. Why should people, seemingly with few restrictions in many states, be free to purchase the kind of weapons that have no function in a normal civilized society? These aren't toys, but your country seems to have stricter rules about alcohol consumption than gun ownership. It's bloody stupid.

Peter P says

Bigsby says

They are very different and that is reflected in law.

Yes. And such law involves mens rea. There are gun accidents and car murders too. And the law deals with them as appropriate.

So then he should compare like with like rather than going "oh look at all these deaths caused by cars."

Call it Crazy says

Bigsby says

If that intention is made real by the ease with which a person can access weapons such as assault rifles,

What is you actual description of an assault rifle?

It is a convenient label. Then the label can be re-defined to include anything except muzzle-loaders.

Call it Crazy says

Bigsby says

If that intention is made real by the ease with which a person can access weapons such as assault rifles,

What is you actual description of an assault rifle?

I'm not interested in your nitpicking definitions of weapons. The broader issues are what matters.

WTF? This is normal human behavior, we are natural born killers. We kill everything, we have war, that kills children, just take a look around man. Not all that many years ago we indiscriminately bombed the living hell out of Iraq, no we were not aiming at schools but plenty of kids died, but so what, killing is killing, do you see it slowing down or stopping?, I don't. We have military, we train people to kill other people, here this is your career, this is what your best at, nervous about it?, don't worry we got PTSD medications for that, yeah they might make you go nuts to.. Get over it already. You live in a world of monsters that we created, just turn on the TV, it makes for great drama, newsbites, sells great, and the sorry truth is people love it.

Call it Crazy says

Bigsby says

I'm not interested in your nitpicking definitions of weapons. The broader issues are what matters.

What I wanted to see if you are just spouting the MSM talking points or if you were actually educated on firearms.

I'm not 'educated' on firearms, but what exactly has that got to with the appropriacy of owning say an AR15?

Call it Crazy says

That's only your opinion that they have "no function"... If you did some research on self defense, you would see that data proves otherwise.

Anybody can produce a talking point about this or that example of self-defence. So what? We are talking about the wider impact on society as a whole rather than individual examples. I'm not particularly anti-gun ownership despite being a Brit, but I don't see much reason for households to be allowed to own say semi-automatic rifles with what seem to be few meaningful safe guards in many states.

Bigsby says

but I don't see much reason for households to be allowed to own say semi-automatic rifles

Perhaps they want less recoil compared to a bolt-action rifle.

Call it Crazy says

Bigsby says

I'm not 'educated' on firearms, but what exactly has that got to with the appropriacy of owning say an AR15?

OK, question, is it appropriate to own a 22 rifle?

I would suggest it entirely depends on what they intend to do with it.
Just as a general point, if people are using a weapon for target practice or hunting, why would they need a semi-automatic weapon?

Bigsby says

Just as a general point, if people are using a weapon for target practice or hunting, why would they need a semi-automatic weapon?

If people just want to go grocery shopping, why do they need a Hummer?

Peter P says

Bigsby says

Just as a general point, if people are using a weapon for target practice or hunting, why would they need a semi-automatic weapon?

If people just want to go grocery shopping, why do they need a Hummer?

Give me strength.

Call it Crazy says

That's why I said you need to look at actual data. The facts are, that firearms have PREVENT many more crimes than have been committed. The problem is, we only hear about the committed ones from the MSM. We need to separate emotional responses and knee-jerk reactions from these instances and look at the facts.

Well show me the facts. Firearms encompass a very wide range, and I presume rather a lot of your examples don't relate to semi-automatic rifles.

Call it Crazy says

Bigsby says

Just as a general point, if people are using a weapon for target practice or hunting, why would they need a semi-automatic weapon?

In target practice, if you're looking to hone your skills, you need to be able to shoot in repetition without changing position. Stopping to reload single shells breaks your rhythm.

In hunting, you don't always kill your game on a single shot, so you need to be able to re-fire quickly to keep the game from escaping wounded.

Life is full of compromises. There are a vast number of restrictions on people's individual liberties that most people don't give a second thought to because they lead to the betterment of society as a whole.

Call it Crazy says

So, only 2/3rds of murders are caused by firearms... which means some other "weapon" was used for the other 1/3.

....."Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year."

....."A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

Your 'only 2/3rds' comment is rather striking.
And I presume that most of the figures you mention below that relate to handguns...

How many murders will give up murdering if they have no guns?

If someone is premeditated and determined, he will follow through.

We have an angry-people problem.

Peter P says

How many murders will give up murdering if they have no guns?

I didn't notice a demand for all guns to be given up.

Bigsby says

Peter P says

How many murders will give up murdering if they have no guns?

I didn't notice a demand for all guns to be given up.

But criminals will still have all those weapons out there.