HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "Guns don't kill peo...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 12:55 AM

 

"Guns don't kill people." Possibly the most stupid meme ever to be floated by the NRA.

89 replies, 5014 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 89 replies Author Time Post
Reply "Guns don't kill people." Possibly the most stupid meme ever to be floated by the NRA. (Original post)
Whovian Jan 2013 OP
Initech Jan 2013 #1
SCantiGOP Jan 2013 #37
11 Bravo Jan 2013 #51
jberryhill Jan 2013 #2
DemocratsForProgress Jan 2013 #10
Straw Man Jan 2013 #15
Heidi Jan 2013 #20
Straw Man Jan 2013 #23
Heidi Jan 2013 #30
Straw Man Jan 2013 #31
vanbean Jan 2013 #3
Whovian Jan 2013 #4
SwankyXomb Jan 2013 #6
loyalsister Jan 2013 #5
spin Jan 2013 #8
Arctic Dave Jan 2013 #9
spin Jan 2013 #13
A Simple Game Jan 2013 #17
spin Jan 2013 #69
loyalsister Jan 2013 #71
spin Jan 2013 #83
loyalsister Jan 2013 #84
spin Jan 2013 #85
loyalsister Jan 2013 #87
spin Jan 2013 #88
jberryhill Jan 2013 #11
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #22
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #80
LeftInTX Jan 2013 #7
StarryNite Jan 2013 #12
spin Jan 2013 #16
Whovian Jan 2013 #18
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #24
spin Jan 2013 #82
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #89
Thinkingabout Jan 2013 #54
hack89 Jan 2013 #19
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #25
hack89 Jan 2013 #27
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #29
hack89 Jan 2013 #33
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #34
hack89 Jan 2013 #35
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #39
hack89 Jan 2013 #40
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #45
hack89 Jan 2013 #48
hack89 Jan 2013 #41
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #46
hack89 Jan 2013 #50
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #53
hack89 Jan 2013 #56
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #58
hack89 Jan 2013 #61
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #67
hack89 Jan 2013 #70
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #72
hack89 Jan 2013 #74
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #76
hack89 Jan 2013 #77
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #79
hack89 Jan 2013 #81
xoom Jan 2013 #86
arely staircase Jan 2013 #28
hack89 Jan 2013 #36
arely staircase Jan 2013 #38
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #43
hack89 Jan 2013 #44
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #47
hack89 Jan 2013 #49
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #52
hack89 Jan 2013 #55
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #57
hack89 Jan 2013 #60
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #62
hack89 Jan 2013 #64
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #66
hack89 Jan 2013 #68
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #73
hack89 Jan 2013 #75
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #78
JoeyT Jan 2013 #14
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #21
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #26
goblue316 Jan 2013 #32
Thinkingabout Jan 2013 #65
okaawhatever Jan 2013 #42
wryter2000 Jan 2013 #59
ileus Jan 2013 #63

Response to Whovian (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 12:57 AM

1. "Guns don't kill people" has been around since the invention of guns.

But yes I do agree they are a public health disaster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Initech (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 03:14 PM

37. As Charlton Heston said:

Guns don't kill people. Intelligent apes with guns kill people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCantiGOP (Reply #37)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 04:47 PM

51. Well, Chuck finally got those "cold, dead hands" he kept blathering about!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:08 AM

2. Neither does just about anything else


Fire doesn't kill people. People who start fires do.

But the darndest thing about those people who happen to kill other people using a gun. Each one of those people - has a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 03:17 AM

10. thank you n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 04:10 AM

15. Which is why ...

Fire doesn't kill people. People who start fires do.

... we don't regulate matches. Or lighters. Or starter fluid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Heidi (Reply #20)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 11:28 AM

23. So to follow the analogy all the way ...

... only one gun per airline passenger?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #23)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 12:30 PM

30. It's not an analogy. It's a rebuttal to your assertion that those items aren't regulated. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heidi (Reply #30)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:35 PM

31. It was jberryhill's analogy ...

... that I was following, using the information that you provided.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:18 AM

3. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have baseball bats." or "only have baseball bats...."

See what I mean?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vanbean (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:29 AM

4. Or maybe steak knives or rocks?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:47 AM

6. Or a board with a nail in it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:45 AM

5. Is there any other device that is designed specifically to kill people?

I wish there were a specific name for those manufactured solely for that purpose. "Assault weapon" is too vague.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 02:58 AM

8. Interesting question. ...

How about a sword. You could argue that a spear or a bow and arrow were originally designed for hunting but a Roman solder's gladius and other such swords were designed as killing instruments of war and were quite effective for that purpose.

Let me assure you that at close range and in skilled hands a gladius is more deadly against a single opponent than most if not all handguns. A handgun might be able to kill a number of people quickly but a sword could also kill a number of unarmed people.

Once such incident occurred in 1520. If you are interested the account is at:

The massacre in the Main Temple

The massacre in the Main Temple of the Aztec capital Tenochtitlan was an episode in the Spanish conquest of Mexico which occurred on May 21, 1520.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_massacre_in_the_Main_Temple

I would post more but choose not to as it is rather bloody. All I will say is that it doesn't make the Spanish look heroic. Also note that I am not saying that firearms were not originally designed for killing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #8)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 03:12 AM

9. What?

 

Not sure how a planned Aztec massacre plays into a gun thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #9)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 03:48 AM

13. The question was ...

"Is there any other device that is designed specifically to kill people?"

As I said it was an interesting question that caused me to think. I own a small collection of swords and know just how lethal they could be. I merely collect them as items to hang on the wall but they are real swords not cheap display items. I also have a collection of knives and some were definitely primarily designed to kill rather than to use as a useful tool. A dagger is not the best choice of a knife to use for opening cardboard boxes, cutting wire or as a kitchen tool. Once again I merely collect such knives which is legal. (If I wish I could carry a dagger for self defense in Florida as my concealed weapons permit allows this unlike the carry laws in most states. I don't as I have no training as a knife fighter.)

I was merely answering the question. As I said firearms were originally designed as weapons for killing. I own several target grade firearms that shoot .22 caliber bullets with extreme accuracy. They obviously were designed as target weapons for punching holes in paper but could be misused to kill a person. I also own several firearms that were designed to kill either animals or humans and I own them for self defense as I don't hunt. I target shoot with some of them as they are accurate at long range.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #8)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 10:22 AM

17. One difference between a gun and a sword is the ability to run away from a sword.

You can also run away from a gun but must run much further. Four or five steps would get you out of the danger zone for a sword, not so for a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #17)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 07:45 PM

69. Most criminals can't hit the broad side of a barn with a gun. ...

Therefore running away from a thug armed with a handgun is not necessarily a bad idea. Four or five steps might just be enough unless your attacker was skilled with his weapon.

However I see your point.

The question I was replying to was:

""Is there any other device that is designed specifically to kill people?"

Which is why I mentioned a sword such as the Roman gladius.



There is absolutely no doubt that firearms are far more effective at a distance than a sword.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #8)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 08:06 PM

71. I was looking for something manufactured in today's world.

Can you think of anything more current that is as deadly as a gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #71)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 10:35 PM

83. Swords are still manufactured in today's world. ...

This video shows a Cold Steel Gurkha Kukri versus a .357 magnum revolver: I wouldn't want to face an attacker armed with either. I might survive being shot with a .357 magnum but in skilled hands a sword is actually far more lethal at close range.



This one shows a Cold Steel Great Sword:



Both can be bought from Amazon.com The Kukri would cost $161.00 and the Great Sword $$357.09. Since I am an Amazon prime member I can have both deliver free by Thursday.

I have no real need for either but I do own this one:



And also this sword cane which I can use in public to help me walk as I am handicapped and I have a concealed weapons permit. (Already checked this out with the local cops.)



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #83)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 10:43 PM

84. LOL

You don't seem to understand what I'm looking for. Something comparable to guns in demand and production, as opposed to some esoteric collectors item. Is this something that you think is going to be bought with the intention to kill a lot of people in a single sweep?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #84)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 11:28 PM

85. You keep refining your question. ...

First you asked, "Is there any other device that is designed specifically to kill people?"

I thought that was an interesting question. It did cause me to think for a minute. First I thought of a spear than a bow. I eliminated both as they were probably designed orgiinally for hunting. A sword seemed to fit the bill as it probably was developed for warfare.

Then you asked, "I was looking for something manufactured in today's world.Can you think of anything more current that is as deadly as a gun?

So I pointed out that swords are still made today and they are very lethal in skilled hands. If you managed to watch even one of my videos I think I proved that point.

Now you have reworded your question to, "You don't seem to understand what I'm looking for. Something comparable to guns in demand and production, as opposed to some esoteric collectors item. Is this something that you think is going to be bought with the intention to kill a lot of people in a single sweep?"

I think we have reached to point where I will have to answer that firearms are the most common lethal weapons in civilian hands.

I thought about mentioning landmines., but you would point out that civilians do not normally own such weapons.


Around every 22 minutes 1 person somewhere
in the world is killed or injured by a landmine.


One hundred million uncleared landmines lie in the fields and alongside the roads and footpaths of one-third of the countries in the developing world. Claiming over 500 victims a week, landmines are weapons of mass destruction in slow motion.

***snip***

Today there are an estimated 110 million anti-personnel mines in the ground around the world and another 100 million in stockpiles. Between 5 and 10 million more mines are produced each year.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~pictim/mines/history/history.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #85)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 11:42 PM

87. It's true.. I have been

I've been trying to get to a question of whether anything comparable to guns is manufactured for widespread public consumption. I find the fact that we don't talk more about the fact that that is the only purpose of guns other than hunting rifles disturbing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #87)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 12:24 AM

88. I've enjoyed target shooting handguns for over 40 years ...

and merely put lots of holes in paper targets and in a few cans. I find it a challenging sport.

I also own firearms for self defense. I've been fortunate that I never had to use one for this purpose. However both my mother and my daughter did stop an attack by men who probably intended to rape them using a handgun. In both cases the attackers were not shot but ran when they realized their victim was armed. Both women were 5'2" and weighed less than 100 pounds. Their attackers were much larger. Fortunately both my mother and daughter had received firearms training and were proficient and willing to use their handguns. Otherwise the attackers might have easily disarmed them and used their handguns against them.

But that doesn't mean that I believe that everybody should own a firearm. Far too many people buy these lethal weapons without any real reason to own one and are unwilling to take the time to learn firearm safety or to become proficient with their weapon. They also often fail to store them securely.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 03:24 AM

11. Disco Music?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #11)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 11:02 AM

22. ha!

?w=640

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 09:26 PM

80. weapons of war? more accurate, but sounds a little dramatic...

even the military is getting away from lethal weapons (somewhat. of course they just built the biggest non-nuke bomb ever)- hopefully nuclear bombs are enough?

Meanwhile, tens of millions of dollars have been invested in the research and development of more "media-friendly" weapons for everyday policing and crowd control. This has lead to a trade-in of old school weapons for more exotic and controversial technologies. The following are six of the most outrageous "non-lethal" weapons that will define the future of crowd control.
http://www.alternet.org/story/151864/6_creepy_new_weapons_the_police_and_military_use_to_subdue_unarmed_people

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:52 AM

7. Guns don't kill people, Gun Owners® kill people

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 03:30 AM

12. It will probably get worse.

There are so many paranoid lunatics running out and buying guns now. Many of which are clueless about guns or gun safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarryNite (Reply #12)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 05:14 AM

16. I agree. That scares me and I am a gun owner who has enjoyed target shooting ...

for over 40 years.

I also fear that these weapons will not be stored securely and will be stolen or accessed by children. Tragedies will result.

Semi-auto firearms such as an AR-15 can be used for target shooting and also by hunters but few gun owners have any real need to own such weapons. They may be a choice for a self defense in a rural environment but not the best choice of a weapon in a crowded urban environment. That of course is debatable.

Some will argue that they should be in civilian hands to stop our government from any attempt to disarm all citizens and turn our nation into a tyranny. While there may be some value in this argument I see little chance of gun bans and confiscation passing any time in the near future. Obama might be a liberal but he is far from a tyrant. He is not about to proclaim himself as President for life or tear up the Constitution.

It is possible that a watered down Assault Weapons Ban II could pass and it might be stronger than the original AWB but it will be a long and difficult battle that requires a lot of support at the grassroots level. Unfortunately this may be offset by the efforts of the 80,000,000 gun owners and the voting age members of their families. Such legislation may have strong support in Blue states but little in Red states. Elected Democrats from Blue states will support strong gun control but Democrats from Red states will be far more hesitant and of course most Republicans will support gun rights.

It might be wiser and far more effective for those who support strong gun control and live in Blue states to try to change their state laws. In states like Florida where over 800,000 residents have concealed weapons permits and firearm ownership is very common it will be almost impossible to try to pass laws such as recently passed in New York. Of course Florida did go for Obama in the last two elections but if the majority of Floridians would support strong gun control laws the state's Stand Your Ground law would face a serious effort to repeal it after the Trayvon Martin shooting. An effort to do so has been launched but most experts feel it has little or no chance in the Republican controlled Florida legislature.

Of course I might be wrong as there is no doubt that Obama can fire up his base and they are very effective. Obama is one of the best motivational speakers I have ever seen but to be honest he seems to have some difficulty being an effective leader and often passes off this task to Congress or others. For example he appointed Joe Biden to lead his effort on formulating gun control policy rather than to take on the job himself. He has the "bully pulpit" and definitely the ability to effectively use it. I believe that we would have ended up with a far better health care bill if Obama would have taken a larger role rather than to leave it to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Still it was a vast improvement.

Obama does have considerable media support for gun control. Unfortunately many Americans have a low opinion of the media.

It is my opinion that Obama wants to start the bargaining with a strong position. I feel he will accept a watered down AWB or none at all in exchange for some real improvements in our gun laws. Perhaps there will once again limits on the size of magazines manufactured after a certain date. I see no real problem with this but it will merely be a "feel good" law as magazines can be changed quickly with just a little practice and the reality is that a 10 round magazine is far less likely to cause a firearm to jam than the dreaded 100 round magazine. It's far easier to swap a magazine and takes less time than to clear a jam. I speak from experience.

Still I might be wrong. Time will tell.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #16)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 10:25 AM

18. Great post. Thanks.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #16)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 11:44 AM

24. nice to hear a responsible voice!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022228375

i'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that ^^^ somewhat revealing article.

the problem is, a large number (perhaps even a majority) of people with guns aren't as knowledgeable or responsible as you, and anyone can get a 33 round mag for a glock online for $50.

another problem- the technology is 50 years behind- the BATF people, who had no boss for 6+ years until recently, are still filling out forms BY HAND because of some foolish NRA law:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022225060

this article makes a interesting point that bullets are ignored:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022227248

say, if you had to show ID and there was a code on the ammo or chip in the gun, you'd be a LOT more careful about what happened with those items...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #24)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 09:43 PM

82. Your first link was to an unusually fair and honest report on Florida gun owners. ...

I will make several comments:

You can sell a firearm in a parking lot in Florida to another Florida resident. I personally wish my firearms to end up with responsible owners. Before I sell a firearm I have to personally know the buyer and he has to have a valid Florida concealed weapons permit which means he has had safety training and a background check. I usually take the buyer out to the range and let him try the weapon which gives me the opportunity to be certain that he does practice the basic gun safety rules.

The article mentions the legal accessory that allows an AR-15 to be bump fired. While I have never seen this item I am amazed that it is legal to own. Fortunately it has not been widely publicized by the media or one might have been used in some recent massacres.

I suspect that the writer of the article is not a "true" reporter. Any reporter worth his salt would never mention that violent crime in Florida is at a 41 year low. Instead they would point out that Florida is filled to the brim with paranoid individuals who fear home invasions and have an arsenal of firearms in their home for self defense. Also mentioned would be the fact that many Floridians have carry permits and are actually cold blooded vigilantes who wander down dark streets late at night hoping to find an excuse to blow some poor thug away.
(Of course this is just )

***

Your second link must come from a more main stream source as while it does contain some valid points it largely ignores how gun owners feel.

For example:

"None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control," says language added to the CDC appropriations bill in 1996.


Perhaps the NRA and knowledgeable gun owners oppose reports by the CDC as it has a mixed record on reporting facts.


CDC: Vaccine Study Design "Uninformative and Potentially Misleading"
Posted: 06/20/08 07:43 PM ET

CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding has delivered a potentially explosive report to the powerful House Appropriations Committee, in which she admits to a startling string of errors in the design and methods used in the CDC's landmark 2003 study that found no link between mercury in vaccines and autism, ADHD, speech delay or tics.

Gerberding was responding to a 2006 report from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which concluded that methodology such as that used in the CDC's flagship thimerosal safety study is riddled with "several areas of weaknesses" that combine to "reduce the usefulness" of using the data in such a way.

***snip***

Read that sentence one more time. The head of the CDC is saying that its most powerful and convincing piece of exonerating evidence for thimerosal was based on anecological analysis of data whose methodology would be, in effect, "useless" for future study
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/cdc-vaccine-study-design_b_108398.html



CDC Reports Unexpected HIV Infections in Hispanics

By Robert Ruiz

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is national organization that is trusted for its accuracy and reliability in tracking public health statistics in regard to such things as life expectancy rates and HIV rates across various cultural groups. A report recently published by the CDC omitted pertinent information that may show that Hispanics do not live longer lives than other cultural groups as was previously reported. The misleading CDC report was written by Dr. Elizabeth Arias entitled “United States Life Tables” in which it was argued that Hispanics lived longer than Caucasians. This report failed to include 2008 HIV statistics along with a professional review that would have added shed some light on the argument being made in this CDC report.

After this initial omission for their report, the CDC later reported new findings that contradict these previous statistics that Hispanics / Latin Americans have longer life expectancies than Caucasians. The HIV statistics are being examined more closely for how they add contradicting information to the CDC’s claim that Hispanics have longer life spans.

New studies now being published by the CDC are shedding light on the previous findings, by reporting an unexpectedly higher rate of HIV infections within the Hispanic population. Hispanics / Latin Americans are being shown to contract the HIV virus at three times the rate of Caucasians. It is now being discovered that CDC reports published over the past couple of years have included inconsistent statistics, in addition to having used a faulty scientific model creating even more inaccuracies when discussing the realities public health issues affecting the Hispanic community.

The CDC is now publishing contradicting statistics from what was originally published and admitting to the inaccuracies of previous reports. The CDC’s “2010 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report” stated, “The annual rate of diagnosis with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection in the United States for Hispanics / Latinos . . . was approximately three times that for whites.”


***
The article also mentions the Tiahrt Amendment.

Many gun owners support the Tiahrt Amendment as they oppose any backdoor effort to federally register firearm in civilian hands.

This is a fairly complicated issue and good points can be made on both sides.

***

The NRA and many gun owners oppose a requirement to install safe gun technology and also the microstamping of ammo as these are unproven and unreliable at this time. This is another complicated subject with points to be made on both sides.

***

The article states:


+ Even though the NRA got laws passed that make it legal for employees to bring their guns to work and leave them in the company parking lot, that is not enough. Now the rapacious NRA has made it illegal in some states for employers to even ask if the employee brought a gun to work! Even if a dispute is brewing. Let's hear it for workplace shootings.


I'm retired so this has no effect on me but let's assume I do decide to go back to work. Since I have a Florida concealed weapons permit I can legally leave a hidden firearm in my locked vehicle in my employer's parking lot (with some exceptions). My employer asks me if I have a handgun in my car because he finds out I have a carry permit. I answer honestly. He finds any excuse to fire me.

To me and the state of Florida this would be discrimination. To those who dislike gun owners this is only the employer's right.

***

Finally the article mentions the fact that gun manufacturers can't be sued for the misuse of the weapons they make. Clearly this was an effort to sue gun manufacturers out of existence. If failed largely because it would set a bad precedent and Ford might be sued because it manufactured a car that could reach speeds of over 120 mph and some fool tried to see how fast the car would go and a tragedy resulted. A company that made hunting knives could be sued if one of its blades was used to kill.

***

Finally you mention:


say, if you had to show ID and there was a code on the ammo or chip in the gun, you'd be a LOT more careful about what happened with those items...


I have no major problems with showing a photo ID to buy ammo. Years ago in Florida we had to do this and the purchase was recorded in a log at the store. It accomplished nothing and eventfully was repealed,

My idea is to require anyone buying a firearm or ammo to have a card proving they had firearm safety training. It could also include a background check similar to the one I had run in order to get my carry permit. Sky and SCUBA divers have to show such a card.

Of course the price for the card would have to be reasonable and not be required to be renewed every six months or a year. This could present a financial burden to the poorer members of our society and effectively limit gun ownership to the middle and upper classes.

I'm not sure exactly what a code on a gun or a chip would accomplish. If you are taking about using the firearm to micro stampi the ammo this can be defeated easily with a file.


In order for bullet microstamping to work, a weapon must be fitted with a special firing pin which has been etched with a unique serial number. When the gun is fired, the firing pin strikes the casing of the bullet, marking it with the serial number. While the microstamp is generally too small to read with the naked eye, it can be identified on a microscope, allowing investigators to cross-reference the serial number with a database of registered weapons.


There are several problems with bullet microstamping. In the first place, if a criminal picks up his or her shell casings, the microstamp will not be recoverable. For this reason, some people argue that microstamping would be more effective if it marked the actual bullet, not the casing. Bullet microstamping also does not address the issue of stolen and unregistered weapons, and a large number of gun crimes are committed with such weapons. Gun owners could also potentially replace the firing pin or file the microstamp off to avoid microstamping when the gun is fired.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-bullet-microstamping.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #82)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 09:27 PM

89. yep, that article is kind of an eye-opener

surprisingly well written for a 'non' reporter...

i won't get started on the prison-industrial complex, but-

The declining prison population is a sign of a dramatic decrease in Florida’s overall crime rate, which peaked in 1991, but has declined by more than half since then, according to analysis by Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice.

“The primary driver of the drop in crime in Florida over the last 20 years seemed to be the increasing incarceration rate,” said Bill Bales, head of FSU’s Center for Criminology and Public Policy Research. “It doesn’t seem to be economics. It’s not the level of police presence. It’s not demographics.
http://fcir.org/2012/08/03/floridas-prison-population-declines-for-the-first-time-in-28-years/

***

the CDC has it's flaws, of course, but i think the NRA has ulterior motives in blocking (and creating) gun laws-
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/15/nras_threats_over_gun_buyback_tied_to_alec_legislation/

***

The Tiahrt Amendments, named for their original sponsor, U.S. Representative Todd Tiahrt (R-KS), are provisions attached to federal spending bills that make it harder for law enforcement officers to aggressively pursue criminals who buy and sell illegal guns. Since it was formed in 2006, Mayors Against Illegal Guns has been fighting to reform the Tiahrt Amendments.

In 2007, hundreds of mayors joined with 30 national and state law enforcement organizations to wage a campaign against the Tiahrt restrictions. The campaign's efforts helped to defeat proposals that would have made the restrictions even worse, and also secured certain improvements to the Tiahrt amendments in the FY 2008 appropriations bill. In 2009, mayors and police chiefs successfully pushed revisions to the Tiahrt language in the FY 2010 appropriations bill, which restored full access to crime gun trace data for state and local law enforcement.

Read the May 7, 2009 Statement of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Co-Chairs on the Tiahrt reforms in the FY 2010 appropriations bill

While the changes made in 2007 and 2009 are a step in the right direction, many of the anti-police provisions in the Amendments remain in place. For example, the Tiahrt provisions still block ATF from requiring gun dealers to conduct inventory checks to detect loss and theft, which law enforcement says is a dangerous back channel source for criminals who are in the market for illegal guns.
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/tiahrt.shtml

***

it is really the gun MAKERS fault more than anything about new safety technology:
But gun-industry and gun-owner groups, including the NRA, are not fond of the idea. The New York Times' Nick Bilton explained why:

“These safety options exist today. This is not Buck Rogers type of stuff," said Robert J. Spitzer, a professor of political science at SUNY Cortland and the author of four books on gun policy.

But gun advocates are staunchly against these technologies, partly because so many guns are bought not in gun shops, but in private sales. “Many guns are bought and sold on the secondary market without background checks, and that kind of sale would be inhibited with fingerprinting-safety technologies in guns,” he said.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/biden-smart-gun-control-technology-violence-task-force-obama-2013-1

***

i doubt you could be fired for having a gun in your car, or be required to admit it.
especially if you had a federal permit.

***

i think suing gun makers would have discouraged them from making millions of bushmasters in the last 10 years.

this is interesting-
Make guns smart
By Jeremy Shane, Special to CNN
Editor's note: Jeremy Shane, who served in the Justice Department during the George H.W. Bush administration, has led ventures in online media, energy and education.
How might this work? Start with locational "self-awareness." Guns should know where they are and if another gun is nearby. Global positioning systems can meet most of the need, refining a gun's location to the building level, even within buildings. Control of the gun would remain in the hand of the person carrying it, but the ability to fire multiple shots in crowded areas or when no other guns are present would be limited by software that understands where the gun is being used.

Guns should also be designed to sense where they are being aimed. Artificial vision and optical sensing technology can be adapted from military and medical communities. Sensory data can be used by built-in software to disable firing if the gun is pointed at a child or someone holding a child.

Building software into guns need not affect gun owners' desire to protect their homes. Trigger control software could be relaxed when the gun is at home or in a car, while other safety features stay on to prevent accidental discharges. Guns used by the police would be exempt from such controls.

***

nothing is perfect, but this is a good idea, too-

This laser engraving is etched on both the projectile and the inside of the cartridge casing. Each code will be common to a single box of cartridges and unique from all other ammunition sold. The unique ACS codes will be tracked and records maintained to identify individual ammunition purchases. The ACS technology will provide a method for law enforcement personnel to trace ammunition purchases and link bullets and cartridge cases found at crime scenes to the initial retail ammunition purchaser. This system will not necessarily prove who pulled the trigger, but it will provide law enforcement with a valuable lead and a starting point to quickly begin their investigations. The design of the ACS laser engraving system will allow law enforcement personnel to identify the bullet code in cases where as little as 20% of the bullet base remains intact after recovery. Since bullets are designed to keep the base solid and in its original configuration, the likelihood of ACS codes remaining legible after recovery is very high. Law enforcement testing has already shown a 99% success rate in identifying the ACS code after bullet recovery.
http://www.ammocoding.com/



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #16)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 04:57 PM

54. Thanks for your words of wisdom, we have to stop the assaults on our citizens

I also worry about unsafe storage of weapons, as in at least two recent shootings the weapons in the home has been available. Instead of the dreamers worrying about the gubment coming after the weapons they should worry about household members coming after them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarryNite (Reply #12)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 10:29 AM

19. The past 30 years would argue otherwise

the smart bet will be that gun violence continues to decline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #19)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 11:50 AM

25. they'd also argue it has NOTHING to do with more guns

According to FBI analysis, the homicide drop would mean that nearly 280 fewer Americans were murdered last year, which would be the lowest homicide death toll since the mid-1950s.

LaFree said a combination of factors – from a weak economy and an aging population to increased immigration and a more robust police presence across the country – have contributed to the drop.

“One of the responses of society is to pull together when there’s a huge crisis and a feeling of great difficulty,” LaFree said, adding that the economic climate may have contributed to this peaceful trend.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/11/12170947-fbi-violent-crime-rates-in-the-us-drop-approach-historic-lows?lite

***

Another possible reason for reduced crime is that potential victims may have become better at protecting themselves by equipping their homes with burglar alarms, putting extra locks on their cars and moving into safer buildings or even safer neighborhoods. We have only the faintest idea, however, about how common these trends are or what effects on crime they may have.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576345553135009870.html

***

also, check the NY Times for medical tech. improving.

the smart money says mass killings, accidental shootings, and suicides all go up with more guns.

as well as gun makers profits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #25)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 12:09 PM

27. So when you have some actual facts let me know.

as it stands right now you have nothing but your opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #27)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 12:16 PM

29. a think a general overview is enough to back up the FACT

that guns are dangerous and there are WAY too many.

because the laws suck, because of the a-hole lobbyists who support lame ones and block good ones.

funny how the majority of people would agree with that 'opinion'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #29)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:59 PM

33. So you can actually demonstrate a steady increase in gun deaths?

because from my perspective I see more guns and fewer deaths. Not saying that more guns = fewer death, only that more guns =/= more deaths.

I support the president's EOs as well as universal background checks and mag size limits. I also support single payer healthcare with mental health coverage to address the issue of suicides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #33)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 02:34 PM

34. i can state as a fact that they are way too high and have gone up since the AWB was lifted

In the United States, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2011: 32,163
2010: 31,672
2009: 31,347
2008: 31,593
2007: 31,224
2006: 30,896
2005: 30,694
2004: 29,569
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

only went down once.

i will point out the RATE stays about the same, but the total is going up, so we are both right, i guess?

***

and look at page five, they peaked right around when the AWB started:
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/Final%20Resource%20Book%20Updated%202009%20Section%201.pdf

***

this is the most telling statistic, i'd say-

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Gun-related death rates in the United States are eight times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it

***

so, we have 13 times more people than australia, but 60 times more gun deaths, and that's BEFORE they banned most guns

The average annual number of handgun deaths in the 5-year period before the legislation was put in place in Australia was only a little over 500. In the United States, the total number of hand gun deaths (1980-2006) is more than 32,000 per year. Firearms are involved in 68% of homicides, 52% of suicides, 43% of robberies, and 21% of aggravated assaults. With 60 times the number of deaths (and a similar number of families devastated) time will tell if the American people and politicians have the will to overcome the powerful lobbies of gun owners and manufacturers that have created the current gun climate and will resist change violently.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/21330/there-are-32-000-gun-deaths-a-year-in-the-u-s-here-is-how-we-get-that-number-to-zero

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #34)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 02:44 PM

35. So murders down drastically with rate cut in half.

suicides up (but rate down), accidental deaths steady.

Looks like a mental health issue.

The flaw with your AWB analysis is simple - military style semiautomatic rifles were legal and being sold during the AWB. The rifle the Newtown shooter used would have been perfectly legal during the AWB. CT has an AWB that is stricter then the 94 AWB and that rifle was still legal.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #35)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 04:02 PM

39. if you want to call 280 less murders a "drastic" reduction, go ahead, but that makes no sense

my AWB analysis is- it did a little bit, but it sucked because of the NRA- obviously, if people are still getting the kinds of guns the law is intended to ban, its a shitty law and should be made better.

you have illustrated the 'flaw' above- you mention 'military style' weapons as if they are perfectly natural.

but most people don't see them as normal and don't see the 'need' for them.

so what if there are 4 million nra members who believe their propaganda? there are probably 200 million who don't.

when you compare statistics, you have to use the same years for comparing two points.

also to get that 'cut in half' thing you are so proud of, you have to go back to 1993, the year before the AWB,
so you are proving my point there.

non-fatal/fatal gun injuries
1996 39,200 14,037
1995 53,400 15,551
1994 61,200 17,527
1993 64,100 18,253
1993-97 Total 257,200* 78,620
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fidc9397.pdf



also, how does the rate of suicide going down make it a mental issue? that is plain backwards.

murders are both slightly up over the same period (1998-2011)

Number of Gun Homicides
ChartIn the United States, annual firearm homicides total

2011: 11,1015
2010: 11,0786
2009: 11,4936 9
2008: 12,1796 12 9
2007: 12,632
2006: 12,791
2005: 12,352
2004: 11,624
2003: 11,9206 9
2002: 11,8296 13
2001: 11,348
2000: 10,8016
1999: 10,8286 8
1998: 9,2578

Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People
ChartIn the United States, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is

2011: 3.65
2010: 3.596
2009: 3.756 7 9
2008: 4.01
2007: 4.19
2006: 4.29
2005: 4.18
2004: 3.97
2003: 4.116 9
2002: 4.116 13
2001: 3.98
2000: 3.846
1999: 3.886 8
1998: 3.378


According to FBI analysis, the homicide drop would mean that nearly 280 fewer Americans were murdered last year, which would be the lowest homicide death toll since the mid-1950s.

LaFree said a combination of factors – from a weak economy and an aging population to increased immigration and a more robust police presence across the country – have contributed to the drop.

“One of the responses of society is to pull together when there’s a huge crisis and a feeling of great difficulty,” LaFree said, adding that the economic climate may have contributed to this peaceful trend.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/11/12170947-fbi-violent-crime-rates-in-the-us-drop-approach-historic-lows?lite

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #39)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 04:12 PM

40. How much did the population increase in that 20 years? There is a reason we focus on rates.

the AWB did nothing - sales of semi-automatic rifles actually peaked in 1999.



This rifle was legal during the AWB:



http://www.coltsmfg.com/Catalog/ColtRifles/ColtCaliforniaCompliantRifles.aspx

"Assault weapons" were flying off the shelf during the AWB.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #40)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 04:32 PM

45. they were flying off the shelf because weirdos were hoarding them

and less actual 'illegal criminals' had them, which is why it worked somewhat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #45)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 04:38 PM

48. So more assualt weapons did not actually lead to more killings?

is that what you are saying?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #39)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 04:17 PM

41. There was a drop in firearm murders of 1450 from 2006 to 2010 alone

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #41)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 04:34 PM

46. like i keep telling you, that is because of DOCTORS not MORe GUNZ

the amount of guns around and people getting shot is preposterous, and you can't find any numbers that say otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #46)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 04:40 PM

50. Besides the FBI saying that aggravated assaults are down? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #50)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 04:55 PM

53. did they happen to tell you why? maybe call them up and ask.

the FBI didn't say anything, they put up a chart, which you are misinterpreting for your own questionable goals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #53)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 05:00 PM

56. Does it matter - as long as fewer people are being shot

that is a good thing, don't you think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #56)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 05:04 PM

58. more people are being shot is what matters, obviously.

and it sucks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #58)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 05:27 PM

61. Not if aggravated assaults are down. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #61)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 07:36 PM

67. so 160,000 assaults sounds about right to you? you're good with 438.4 assaults A DAY?

so the drastic reduction in FIREARM assaults, down to a snail's pace of one every 3.2 minutes, you are happy with that?

kinda messed up...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #67)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 07:53 PM

70. We have reduced the rate of aggravated assaults by 60%

in 20 years and those rates will continue to decline.

You refuse to accept just how much we have reduced violent crime of every kind in America, don't you? Doesn't fit with your idea of a violent, out of control society, does it?

Look at this table and just realize that you have never been safer.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #70)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 08:13 PM

72. aggravated assault means all of them, not just ones with guns. you keep cherry picking

that chart says we've gone from 3.2 assaults A MINUTE to 2.3 A MINUTE.

so what?

More recently, Donohue co-authored a paper in 2012 that concluded “aggravated assault rises when RTC (right to carry) laws are adopted. For every other crime category, there is little or no indication of any consistent RTC impact on crime.”
http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

There are two reasons why the effects of CCW laws on crime are likely to be negligible, the authors wrote. First, only a tiny percentage of the population seeks to obtain a concealed weapon permit. And those who do tend to be from groups who are at relatively low risk for either crime perpetration or victimization. They are generally older, higher-income, rural whites.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #72)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 08:20 PM

74. "the lowest rate since 2004"

they are going down. They will most likely continue to go down. Despite all those guns being purchased.

Which is a good thing.


You have never been safer - don't forget that. Don't let fear rule your life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #74)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 08:27 PM

76. great, getting shot is okay as long as the doctors can save you

if things are so safe, WHY DO YOU NEED SO MANY GuNS????

maybe i'm more worried about kids in schools than myself or your targets.

maybe i'm just plain embarrassed that americans can be so stubborn and foolish.

maybe i think it sucks gun companies get billions of dollars and some schools get shit.

or that the parents of those kids can't sue anyone because of the nra.

or that the same a-hole politicians that suck up to the nra are the ones screwing everything else up.

there are many angles beyond 1 less person getting shot per minute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #76)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 08:31 PM

77. I live in a very safe town - danger has nothing to do with why I own guns

I am a competitive target shooter - me and my entire family.

You need to stop trying to fit gun owners into a few narrow slots. There are many reasons people own guns.

You and I want the same thing - I just think your solutions are unrealistic. There are other ways to address the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #77)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 09:17 PM

79. then why are you so stubborn that guns make you safer? how would you even know?

i think you are being a bit naive is all- look at it this way- 40% of gun sales are illegal

that means for your family (you've mentioned wife+daughter) 3 people = 60%

there are 2 criminals making up the other 40%. that isn't safe for anyone, no matter where you are.

i also live in a safe town, but there are many people that don't, and Newtown was a 'safe' town, too.

wouldn't you want a system that would work, hypothetically, like this-

if you were away on a vacation, and someone broke in and stole your prized handgun or rifle (i'm sure you have a safe, but just go with it)

1. if it was registered, etc, you'd get it back if they got pulled over for speeding.
2. if your bullets had serial numbers and were used in a crime, the #s might help solve something
3. if (best one) your gun had a chip or ring so only you could fire it,you take it on vacation, gun is useless to them, they might dump it at a pawn shop, and you might get it back, or they'd look really stupid trying to rob a bank with a gun that went 'click click'

it isn't any crazier than scanning a bar code with your phone


i think we could agree on this at least-
http://www.freep.com/article/20130120/COL33/301200174/1068/RSS06
"A separate ATF study found that over half of guns recovered from criminals and crime scenes were traced to 1% of licensed dealers. I've conducted several studies demonstrating that when there is greater regulation and oversight of gun dealers, and when they are vulnerable to civil and criminal penalties if they do not obey gun sales laws, far fewer guns flow into the illicit gun market where criminals obtain their guns."

The constitution permits legislation that revokes an individual's freedom for life after the commission of a third serious crime. Logically, it should also permit the stiffest possible penalties for gun shops caught evading safeguards intended to keep guns from criminals.

And gun owners could be held more responsible, too. If I give a car to someone who's not licensed to drive and they kill someone with it, I could be held liable. If a legal gun owner sells a firearm to someone who shouldn't have it, liability (certainly civil, maybe even criminal) ought to attach in that context, as well.

Sloppiness also ought to be met with consequences. A study in the mid-1990s concluded that nearly 500,000 guns are stolen each year in the United States -- a mind-blowing figure.

It doesn't violate anyone's rights to require the reporting of stolen firearms (laws vary by state right now), or to institute real penalties for gun owners who don't lock up weapons that later wind up being used in crimes.

Some of what Obama proposed last week touches on these ideas. The president would enhance firearms tracing by creating a more thorough database of gun registrations.

But you'd think the strongest advocates for these kinds of policies would be responsible gun owners and sellers themselves. They've got nothing to lose, and everything to gain from initiatives that separate them from their more feckless compatriots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #79)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 09:32 PM

81. I am not safer because of guns

I am not in more danger because of guns either.

I support all the president's EOs. I support universal background checks. I support more funding for the ATF. I support more funding for the states to get date into the NICS system. I support laws that require stolen guns be reported.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #34)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 11:40 PM

86. If you figure there was 1 gun used in each death, 32,163 firearms used out of 270,000,000 isnt that

 

Much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #25)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 12:13 PM

28. i bet medical tech is key

a bet murder rates are lower because fewer victims die. same with combat fatalities. each war in the 20-21st centuries would have been much deadlier if it had been fought with the previous war's medical tech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #28)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 02:48 PM

36. The flaw in that analysis is that aggravated assaults are not up

Last edited Mon Jan 21, 2013, 03:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Aggravated assault is the crime when you shot someone and they live. There is no evidence that the number of shootings is up or even steady.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #36)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 03:44 PM

38. that would not be consistent with my thesis (based on a hunch), no.

i bet it does hold true for combat fatalities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #36)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 04:28 PM

43. why would someone believe you when you don't post a number or link? you are not an expert

What’s more, deaths may be a misleading statistic that minimizes the true breadth of gun violence. Another report this year by the Violence Policy Center, using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that while gun deaths remained relatively flat from 2000 to 2008, the total number of people shot went up nearly 20 percent since 2001. Why the difference between rates of shootings and deaths? “Advances in emergency services — including the 911 system and establishment of trauma centers — as well as better surgical techniques,” the report said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/opinion/blow-guns-smoke-and-mirrors.html?_r=0

***

11,078 gun homicides (NCIPC, 2010);

55,544 gun injuries from assaults treated in emergency rooms (NCIPC, 2011);

337,960 firearm victimizations reported in crime surveys (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2010, p. 8);

136,371 gun assaults reported to police (Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Table 15);

122,300 gun robberies reported to police (FBI, Table 15);

201 legal self-defense killings by private citizens with a firearm (FBI, Expanded Homicide Data, Table 15).

ummm....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #43)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 04:31 PM

44. I have posted the FBI crime reports many times

no one likes to read them because they don't like what they say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #44)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 04:36 PM

47. and proved zilcho

they don't say anything- that is the problem-

as if a couple of ramdom charts could prove such a complicated issue...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #47)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 04:39 PM

49. Besides aggravated assaults going down, you mean.

but a random NY Times article can prove such a complex issue? OK

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #49)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 04:54 PM

52. so aggravated assaults are going down because less a-holes have guns

not because there are more guns in safes.

try reading the last point in the OP. and the other ones, while you're up there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #52)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 04:58 PM

55. But fewer aggravated assaults mean fewer people being shot.

continuing a 20 year trend. Good news, don't you think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #55)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 05:01 PM

57. no, suicide and murder are up, so not really at all.

and not good news no matter how you try to polish that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #57)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 05:27 PM

60. Murder is down

what the hell are you talking about?

An estimated 14,748 persons were murdered nationwide in 2010. This was a 4.2 percent decrease from the 2009 estimate, a 14.8 percent decrease from the 2006 figure, and an 8.0 percent decrease from the 2001 estimate.

In 2010, there were 4.8 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, a 4.8 percent decrease from the 2009 rate. Compared with the 2006 rate, the murder rate decreased 17.4 percent, and compared with the 2001 rate, the murder rate decreased 15.0 percent. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/murdermain

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #60)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 05:35 PM

62. stop nitpicking annual death total=up. rate ~ the same. amount of guns=way too many

In the United States, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2011: 32,163
2010: 31,672
2009: 31,347
2008: 31,593
2007: 31,224
2006: 30,896
2005: 30,694
2004: 29,569
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

only went down once.

i will point out the RATE stays about the same, but the total is going up, so we are both right, i guess?


***

http://bangordailynews.com/2013/01/21/politics/meet-the-nras-new-foes-mass-shooting-survivors/

“Like most Americans, I had assumed we did everything we could to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people,” said Goddard, “and frankly, I was shocked to learn that in some cases you don’t even have to go through a background check.”

Christian Heyne, 26, made a similar discovery after a California gunman severely wounded his father and killed his mother and another man as his parents were returning a boat they had borrowed from a friend on Memorial Day in 2005.

“He owned three guns, though he shouldn’t have,” Heyne, who now works as a legislative assistant and grassroots coordinator for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said of his parents’ shooter. “People don’t know how insane our gun laws are, and to be fair, neither did I until it came knocking on my front door.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #62)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 05:40 PM

64. Those numbers are not homicide deaths.

there were 8775 gun murders in 2010 - a drop from 10,225 in 2006.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

Suicides are a mental health problem.

on edit: and the suicide rates are going down according to your link.

In the United States, the annual rate of firearm suicide per 100,000 population is

2011: 6.35
2010: 6.286
2009: 6.11
2008: 5.99
2007: 5.76
2006: 5.66
2005: 5.756 23
2004: 5.726
2003: 5.83
2002: 5.95
2001: 5.926 19
2000: 5.896
1999: 5.95
1993: 7.3524

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #64)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 07:28 PM

66. again with the 1993 thing

and nothing to do with sense or logic. they went up from 99 to 2011

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #66)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 07:44 PM

68. I just showed you a decline every year from 2006 to 2010

so don't tell me they were increasing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #68)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 08:17 PM

73. yes, for the 12th time, homicides are down because of DOCTORS

and injuries are up because TOO MANY GUNZ

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #73)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 08:22 PM

75. You just showed me that aggravated assaults with guns are the lowest in years

so it is more than murders that are down.

Losing track of what you post?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #75)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 08:39 PM

78. no, you just read bad.

try again. aggravated is down, non-fatal injuries and assault are up.

same link as before-

There were 55,544 non-fatal injuries in 2011 resulting from assaults involving guns — up from 53,738 in 2010 and 44,466 in 2009, the CDC’s database shows. Since 2001, the rate of gun injuries is the second highest in 11 years when adjusted for population.

However, Barber said gun violence has “dropped precipitously” from the early 1990s — a trend criminologists chalked up to “changes in the crack cocaine market.” Her observation is supported by crime data and surveys.

-skip-

But among advanced countries, the U.S. homicide rate stands out. “We seem to be an average country in terms of violence and aggression,” says Harvard’s Hemenway. “What we have is huge homicide rates compared to anybody else.”

Says Wintemute: “The difference is that in this country violence involves firearms and firearms change the outcome.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 03:49 AM

14. It was invented back before they were nuts.

Apparently the original meaning of the phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." was that a gun being an inanimate object, you're wholly responsible for anything your gun does, and if you weren't ready for that you didn't need to own one.

Originally meant as a mantra to encourage responsibility, it ended up a dumbass bumper-sticker catchphrase that was almost exactly the opposite of the original meaning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 10:58 AM

21. i think 'the ONLY thing that stops a bad guy' is even dumber.

just because there are thousands of things that stop a bad guy, and a gun is actually the last resort.

or perhaps everything they say is equally preposterous and insidious- one big steaming hill of crap!

***

A good rule of thumb is to just keep your gun at home, dumbasses. If you are, say, going to start an argument with your girlfriend’s ex-husband at his car wash, as Deounce Harden did in 2006, if you bring your gun, these things can happen:

1. The guy you’re arguing with runs away, because you are clearly insane.
2. The guy you’re arguing with shoots you, because he has a gun too. Whoops.
3. A fight breaks out, your gun gets taken, and you get shot. Whoops again.
4. The guy comes at you and you’re worried about your gun getting taken, so you shoot him and now you might go to prison for a long time.

That’s the entire list of possible outcomes. At no time in history has someone said, “Oh, I see you’ve decided to exercise your Second Amendment rights. Clearly, sir, you are in the right on this question, and I respectfully withdraw my opposition to you.” The more likely response to a gun being drawn is, “What are you going to do, you stupid-ass motherfucker? Shoot me?” or, “Alright, Imma go get my gun, then we’ll see who’s the big man ‘round these parts.”

This week the Tampa Bay Times came out with a terrific long story about the effects of the “Stand Your Ground” law. It reveals some pretty fucked inconsistencies in how the law is applied and includes a great quote from a judge who says the law “could conceivably result in all persons who exchanged gunfire on a public street being immune from prosecution.” (This is Florida, so persons exchanging gunfire on a public street is something that happens.) The article is also a treasure trove of stories of people getting shot for very, very stupid reasons. A man shoots another man on a basketball court over an argument over a woman. Some dude kills his cousin over 60 bucks. Two people die when a fight starts after the bar at a Chili’s closes.
http://www.vice.com/read/dont-take-your-guns-to-town-morons

***

The Top 16 N.R.A. Slogans

16. Fascism -- It Ain't Just for Nazis Anymore

15. Do What We Say and No One Gets Hurt!

14. 1997 Recipient of the Disgruntled Postal Worker Seal Of Approval

13. Today's NRA -- Still Gun-Ho on America (and now 60% sane!)

12. Second Amendment, College Boy -- Read It and Weep

11. Helping to Reduce the Surplus Population, One Innocent Bystander at a Time

10. Why Don't Y'all Go Bother the Knife People for a While, Huh?!

9. The NRA: Relieving Feelings of Inadequacy for 125 Years

8. Fer Chrissakes! Watch Where Yer Pointin' That Thing!

7. Every Waiting Period's Gotta End Sometime, You Pussy-Whipped Liberal Pantywaists

6. When You Absolutely, Positively Have to Kill Someone

5. The NRA: Buying Legislators Today So YOU Can Buy Automatic Weapons Tomorrow

4. Guns! The *Affordable* Phallic Substitute

3. A Couple Thousand Yokels in Pickup Trucks Can't Be Wrong

2. Uzi Does It!

And the Number One N.R.A. Slogan . . .

1. Who Do You Want to Shoot Today?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 12:04 PM

26. I wouldn't mind that phrase if they also offered a solution to people who kill people with guns

But they do not. They enable murderers. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:43 PM

32. Guns don't kill people, crazy gun owners kill people.

This gun control crap brings out the crazy and makes me nervous. I truly think there needs to be reform and I salute those who will finally institute it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to goblue316 (Reply #32)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 06:48 PM

65. I have exercised my fingers many times and no one died from it. Also never saw report reading

Victim died as a result of moving finger, more like victim of gunshot wounds. If the guns was nit available and unthinking users did not have guns to shoot we would have less deaths by guns. The guns are being stored improperly and handled improperly. Guns do kill, might sound better to say they do not kill. Besides this, some of the weapons are designed to kill, used in combat, they do not have a place on the streets of the USA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 04:21 PM

42. I understand that "guns don't kill people" was originally used as a safety mantra taught by

the NRA It was meant as a warning that it's the mishandling of firearms or the lack of safety procedures that end in death. A gun without a human is a paper weight. Sadly, it was co-opted by the new NRA nutjobs to promote their cause.

And if they really want to be azz holes about it, it's the bullets that kill people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 05:07 PM

59. As far as I'm concerned

Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people. People with guns kill more people than people with knives, poison, bombs, and other weapons. We can't get rid of people, so we have to do something about guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 05:39 PM

63. Why do these guns keep killing people....why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread