HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Approximately how many de...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:08 AM

Approximately how many deaths by gun per day is acceptable in a free society?

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

I was inspired by Jon Stewart to pose this question to the group, because he brought up an interesting point tonight. Nowadays, people in the public sphere who want to simply talk about gun violence in this country are often shouted down by the pro-gun freedom opposition--it's not the right time, it's not the right place. Democrats won't bring the issue up, because they know it's politically dangerous to do so. The NRA have become experts at preemptively striking every time there's any sort of gun-related tragedy in the news, by making people who broach the subject into the villains for exploiting a tragedy for personal gain. And Republicans, of course, depend on the NRA for political support. So, at least in public, the people who COULD have an effect on gun violence are doing nothing about it: political people on the left don't want to alienate anybody, and political people on the right only bring it up to talk about how there really isn't a problem--and if there is, it has nothing to do with guns.

So I guess there maybe ISN'T a gun problem, right? I mean, that's the message I'm getting from the national public silence on the issue of gun control. If there's no dialogue, there must be nothing to talk about, other than partisan bickering and points-scoring.

Which would mean, the current rate of 9 gun deaths per 100,000 people per year is OK, right? Acceptable losses. It's the price of being a free country with freedom-enabling gun laws. I mean, these are tragedies, but whatever--you can't make an omelette without breaking a few 28,000-odd eggs every 12 months. And when compared to other countries, that per capita per year body count puts us in between famously crime-ridden South Africa and politically volatile Montenegro. Canada, France, Israel, Australia, Poland, and Japan are all way below. True, Brazil is worse, but we actually have them beat when you look only at accidental deaths, ie, no "bad guys" involved.

(BTW I'm getting these numbers from www.gunpolicy.org, which is not based in America and claims to provide "evidence-based, country-by-country intelligence from a broad range of official and academic sources." They say they're non-biased. I have no evidence to say yea or nay on this, but the numbers sound right.)

I know there are many here who are proud, responsible gun-owners who support the 2nd amendment--and then there are plenty who are neither. And I want to tell everyone right now--I don't have any answers. I don't know guns or gun laws at all. What I want to talk about, and I want to phrase in a way I haven't often heard it said before: is that statistic acceptable, i.e. "normal?" Or can we, and should we do better?

My opinion is we can and we should. Most Americans believe this country is always capable of doing better. And that means our country as a whole should talk about bringing those statistics down. Everywhere. NOW.

69 replies, 4991 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 69 replies Author Time Post
Reply Approximately how many deaths by gun per day is acceptable in a free society? (Original post)
Bicoastal Dec 2012 OP
pipoman Dec 2012 #1
MrSlayer Dec 2012 #2
NoOneMan Dec 2012 #3
JVS Dec 2012 #4
patrice Dec 2012 #5
IDoMath Dec 2012 #7
IDoMath Dec 2012 #6
DanTex Dec 2012 #25
LAGC Dec 2012 #27
DanTex Dec 2012 #29
IDoMath Dec 2012 #32
DanTex Dec 2012 #33
pipoman Dec 2012 #8
Hoyt Dec 2012 #13
pipoman Dec 2012 #14
DanTex Dec 2012 #23
Paladin Dec 2012 #31
backwoodsbob Dec 2012 #9
cynatnite Dec 2012 #10
The Straight Story Dec 2012 #12
IDoMath Dec 2012 #34
hack89 Dec 2012 #36
DanTex Dec 2012 #63
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #11
DanTex Dec 2012 #18
LAGC Dec 2012 #20
DanTex Dec 2012 #22
LAGC Dec 2012 #24
DanTex Dec 2012 #26
LAGC Dec 2012 #28
DanTex Dec 2012 #30
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #67
hobbit709 Dec 2012 #15
pipoman Dec 2012 #16
DanTex Dec 2012 #21
Upton Dec 2012 #55
hack89 Dec 2012 #17
Hoyt Dec 2012 #35
hack89 Dec 2012 #37
Hoyt Dec 2012 #44
DanTex Dec 2012 #19
hack89 Dec 2012 #38
DanTex Dec 2012 #48
hack89 Dec 2012 #53
1-Old-Man Dec 2012 #40
DanTex Dec 2012 #50
hack89 Dec 2012 #42
DanTex Dec 2012 #54
hack89 Dec 2012 #56
DanTex Dec 2012 #60
hack89 Dec 2012 #65
goclark Dec 2012 #66
hack89 Dec 2012 #57
Kaleva Dec 2012 #49
DanTex Dec 2012 #52
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #39
hack89 Dec 2012 #45
billh58 Dec 2012 #41
oneshooter Dec 2012 #43
Mel Content Dec 2012 #46
1-Old-Man Dec 2012 #47
oneshooter Dec 2012 #58
DanTex Dec 2012 #62
billh58 Dec 2012 #68
FarCenter Dec 2012 #51
Kaleva Dec 2012 #61
FarCenter Dec 2012 #64
Kaleva Dec 2012 #59
HappyMe Dec 2012 #69

Response to Bicoastal (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:19 AM

1. IBL

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bicoastal (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:22 AM

2. In a truly free society does it matter?

 

If you're free you can kill at will.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bicoastal (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:23 AM

3. What free society?

 

My answer is none. Free societies ceased existing before long guns were created.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bicoastal (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:27 AM

4. Not enough information. I don't consider all shootings to be a bad thing.

A burglar or rapist being shot is not the same as a kid finding his parents' gun and shooting himself, but the statistic you offer lumps them together.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bicoastal (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:30 AM

5. Apparently an unlimited amount as long as "we" continue to complain about drones. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:33 AM

7. I would agree.

 

As long as we consider drone warfare acceptable, why should we care about gun violence at home?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bicoastal (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:32 AM

6. How many deaths are acceptable?

 

First, let's ask, how many deaths are acceptable and what kinds of deaths? Once we answer that question we can start drilling down to how many deaths of a certain kind are acceptable.

Too often, the response to such a question is "Not One." Well, OK, but we live in the real world. How many deaths by car are acceptable? How many by smoking? How many by fast food? How many by sedentary living? How many by falling meteorites? Animal attacks? War? Poverty? Hunger? Preventable illnesses. Knives. alcohol. Bows. household chemicals. sticks. rocks....

the list goes on.

We don't really live in a free society. We live in a freer society than most. I'm not sure what a truly free society would look like. I think in a truly free society we would all have greater control over where and how we live. We could choose to associate or not associate with certain people. We wouldn't be forced to associate with dangerous people simply because economics or some other factor forces us into contact with them. In such a Utopia, we would truly be the result of our own good or bad choices.

For some reason, Americans have a fetish with guns. Its unhealthy and we need to get over it.

However, I am fairly certain that trying t legislate it away will have the exact same effect as prohibition and drug laws have on their respective targets.

Education is more effective for long term change than legislation.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDoMath (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:16 AM

25. There are a lot of reasons why gun control and prohibition of alcohol are very different.

The economics are totally different. Except for a small fraction of the country, guns aren't a frequent repeat purchase. Guns are more difficult to manufacture and distribute that booze. Etc.

And then there's the fact that gun control laws have worked effectively in many other countries other than the US. If you look at the UK or Japan, you don't see huge black markets for guns.

While I agree that there are a lot of other causes of preventable death, that doesn't justify inaction on guns. A lot of people die due to inadequate medical care, for example, and if you ask the GOP, they will tell you this is the price of "freedom". But the reality is that it is unconscionable that a wealthy democracy like the US fails to provide adequate healthcare for it's people, and it is also unconscionable that we endure rates of gun violence that are some 5X or 10X higher than the rest of the developed world.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #25)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:21 AM

27. Of course, the devil's in the details, isn't it?

The cat's already been done let out of the bag in regards to gun proliferation in our society.

Millions more in civilian hands every year.

The UK or Japan never had that many guns in civilian hands to begin with. Much easier to control something that was never a "problem" to begin with.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #27)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:33 AM

29. In the short term, yes, in the longer term, no.

Inertia is an always excuse for those fighting against progressive social change. Nobody is saying we can get our rates of gun violence in line with Western Europe overnight, but we can certainly move in that direction. But my point, which is that the analogy with prohibition is a poor one, is still valid.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #25)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:15 AM

32. The similarities are more relevant than the differences

 

Those differences you cite are minor. The similarity is critical. In each case you are talking about taking away an existing right. That's a lot harder than creating a new right (e.g. healthcare). In some or all of those other countries the right to bear arms never really existed.

If you are talking about the black market? I just heard a fact the other other day. Guns are one of the top two items on the worldwide black market. So I'd say the black market for guns worldwide is pretty darn high. (Drugs were the other, wild animals were #3).

I'm not talking about inaction. If you don't like gun deaths then start or join an organization working to bring sanity back to the country. But focus on education. Figure out WHY we are obsessed with our magic boom sticks. Figure out where the accidents and deaths concentrate. What happens when you remove the drug-related incidents from the statistic? How does the statistic vary from urban to rural settings. Buy commercials. Get the market talking. Make guns unpopular.

Don't go straight for the legislative answer, though.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDoMath (Reply #32)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:29 AM

33. I don't think so.

Those differences you cite are minor.

How so? Are you saying that anytime anything is regulated or banned, there will be a large criminal black market? If so, you are wrong. Whether and how large a black market arises depends heavily on individual characteristics of the product and the market, supply, demand, etc.

In each case you are talking about taking away an existing right.

Like I said above, nobody said that the change will be immediate, but inertia is a poor excuse for sticking with the status quo.

If you are talking about the black market? I just heard a fact the other other day. Guns are one of the top two items on the worldwide black market. So I'd say the black market for guns worldwide is pretty darn high. (Drugs were the other, wild animals were #3).

The worldwide black market includes a lot of places like Mexico where the rule of law has basically collapsed. Can you think of any wealthy Democracy where there is a rampant black market for guns?

I'm not talking about inaction....
Don't go straight for the legislative answer, though.

Why not both? I'm not talking about banning guns, by the way. But how about starting by requiring a background and mental health check for all gun transfers? How about requiring all handguns to be registered with the police, and requiring lost or stolen guns to be reported? How about limiting magazine capacity so you can't shoot 30 people without reloading? What about limiting gun purchases to one per month? Etc.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bicoastal (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:44 AM

8. The stats don't justify the hair-on-fire gun control attitude.

According to the BJS violent crime has been dropping for nearly 40 years even as the number of guns in private hands increases every single day. There are 300 million guns in the hands of between 1/3 and 1/2 of the population yet, by your own numbers 30k "gun deaths" (not to mention the silliness of the dwelling on "gun deaths" and "gun violence" to the exclusion of violent crime in general). Of coarse there is the pesky issue of the 30K number that over 1/2 are suicides bringing the number to something less than 15k. Then there are the justifiable shootings around 4k annually. Criminal on criminal shootings account for over 1/2 of the remaining 11k leaving around 5500. Of the 5500 around 1/3 are domestic violence, 1/3 is criminal on innocent, and the rest are accidents and other causes.

Asking the question, "Approximately how many deaths by gun per day is acceptable in a free society?", and the rest of the typical diatribe, is to pretend that the complete (though impossible) vaporization of all guns would have any real effect on the net number of deaths.

Gun control is dead. It is counter to liberal and progressive ideals. Liberals are supposed to advocate for liberal interpretation of civil rights and liberties.

Take your thread over to the gungeon after it is locked here..I'm sure there will be some opinions over there..

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 05:29 AM

13. Who told you that more guns in more places is "progressive" or a "civil right?"


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 07:16 AM

14. Liberal interpretation of enumerated civil liberties

has always been a Liberal, liberal value. Conservatives believe in conservative interpretation of civil liberties. It's always been this way. I know it destroys you that the second amendment says what it says (from previous conversations with you), but it does say what it says and SCOTUS has now settled it and removed the false interpretations which have been forwarded for decades by urbanites. The second is now being interpreted as it is written and was intended.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:08 AM

23. LOL. "Settled" by a 5-4 decision with only right-wingers in the majority.

Since when are 5-4 Scalia opinions so highly regarded among Democrats?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:05 AM

31. "Urbanites"?


Now there's a buzz word if I ever heard one. Who came up with that one, and just what the hell does it really mean?

The gun activist culture in the U.S. is demonstrably a hyper-right wing phenomenon. It has been that way for decades. You can spew all you want about Second Amendment absolutism being a liberal cause, but that sure as hell doesn't make it so. You might as well argue that Antonin Scalia is fit to serve on the Supreme Court.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bicoastal (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:48 AM

9. I assume you do know that

on average more people in the USA die every day from beatings than from guns.

What oh what are you suggesting we do about the epidemic of beating deaths?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backwoodsbob (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:55 AM

10. Do you have a source for that? n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cynatnite (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 02:14 AM

12. here (violent crime in general)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:29 AM

34. Interesting.... Where is the problem, really?

 

I downloaded that first table. At first glance it looks like California, Florida and Texas are the big gun problems in the country. However, if you resort the data based on per-capita incidents instead of totals you get a different story.

In that case, Texas, Florida and CA don't even make the top ten. CA is actually BELOW the national average. The number one state for per capita incidents? Illinois. Followed by TN, SC, AR, DC, MO, DE, LA, NM and MI. 4 blue & 6 red states.

Now, CA, FL & TX account for 55% of all gun incidents overall. What do those states have in common? Well they are ports/border states. They have high populations. They have a high volume of smuggling traffic and a high volume of illegal narcotics traffic.

I'm willing to bet if we decriminalized drug addiction and started treating as a public health problem instead, you would kill these markets, reduce the illegal trade and subsequently put a huge dent in overall gun deaths.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDoMath (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:43 AM

36. Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in America. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backwoodsbob (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:27 AM

63. This is not true. What's with the false statistics from the NRA crowd?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bicoastal (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:55 AM

11. Approximately how many deaths from home invasions is acceptable by anti-gunners?

 

Home invasions do happen. As one example:

"FLINT (WJRT) - (12/04/12) - Charges have been issued in the November shooting death of a 21-year-old Mauricia Christensen.
...
"Police have said she was killed during what appears to be an attempted home invasion. She was shot, inside of a home, in the 100 block of East Gracelawn on Flint's northside the night of Nov. 11.

http://www.abc12.com/story/20259975/charges-issued-in-november-shooting-death-home-invasion

And yet armed home owners are frequently able to stop such home invasions while the police are not even in the immediate vicinity:

"ASHEBORO, North Carolina -- Two men broke into a home and tried to rob an Asheboro family at gunpoint Tuesday evening, but the owner of the home shot and injured at least one of the robbers, ...

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1622

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 07:49 AM

18. Ah, if it isn't anecdotal evidence from the NRA crowd!

Statistically, guns cause far more deaths than they prevent. In fact, keeping a gun for self-defense actually increases the odds of being shot.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 07:54 AM

20. Then choose not to bring guns into your house.

But what gives you the right to impose your view on anyone else's household?

If people want to take the risk, who are you to say otherwise?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #20)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:02 AM

22. Ah, the old NRA change-of-subject.

One NRAer puts out some silly anecdotal claims, and I contest them, and now the subject is suddenly changed...

You realize, of course, that guns are often used to kill people other than the owner of the gun, right?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #22)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:14 AM

24. Why are you resorting to ad hominem attacks?

What makes you think the poster upthread is an NRA member? Is someone merely offering a different point-of-view than yourself automatically make them "NRA" in your eyes? Not many DUers belong to that organization, as you should well know.

Of course guns often kill people other than the owner of the gun. Isn't that generally a good thing?

I imagine not many people would choose to own guns if guns were used that often to kill the owner of the gun.



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:20 AM

26. So calling someone who repeats NRA talking points an NRAer is ad hominem?

Of course guns often kill people other than the owner of the gun. Isn't that generally a good thing?


No, it's a generally bad thing. There are few -- less than 500 -- justifiable homicides per year.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #26)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:28 AM

28. Most defensive gun uses don't involve death.

Who are you to deprive someone of their right to protect their own lives and those of their loved ones?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #28)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:39 AM

30. Most gun crimes don't involve death either.

At the end of the day, guns do much more harm than good. The statistics are clear. Yes, there are incidents and anecdotes where someone manages to defend themselves with a gun, but they are greatly outnumbered. Like I pointed out, for most people, owning a gun for self-defense actually puts them at greater risk, not less.

Besides, who said I want to deprive anyone of their right to self-defense? For example, if all handguns must be registered and all gun transfers require a background and mental health check, how does that stop anyone from protecting their loved ones (or attempting to)?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:49 AM

67. You name-calling jerk.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bicoastal (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 07:19 AM

15. Evidently 120+ per day to lack of medical care is acceptable

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bicoastal (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 07:20 AM

16. Oh, also...

over the last several years there have been several poll threads both on DU2 and DU3 in GD about gun control. Virtually every time gun control has been defeated by dems right here in GD. The lie that dems support gun control is just that. Gun control is more an urban vs. rural issue than a liberal vs. conservative issue.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 07:59 AM

21. LOL. Never thought I'd see poll trutherism right here on DU!

Last edited Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:08 AM - Edit history (1)

I guess it's not suprising kind of mind that blindly supports NRA propaganda would also be able to convince itself that an internet poll is more accurate than the professional polls. The actual data, of course, shows that the Dem/Rep split on guns is greater than urban rural, but inside the GOP/NRA bubble reality looks a little different.

Republican 70 26 4 926
Democrat 30 67 3 1116
Independent 46 50 4 1328


Urban 38 57 4 984
Suburban 46 50 4 1734
Rural 63 33 4 682


http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/gun-control-2011.pdf

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:10 AM

55. Agreed..

growing up in the Bay Area, the need for more gun control was just sort of accepted by myself and others. However, since I moved to rural Washington state I've down almost a complete 180 on this subject..almost everybody owns guns, regardless of their political persuasion..

There's a difference between urban and rural Democrats on this topic. The party would do well to listen, before they become exclusively a party of urban areas..

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bicoastal (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 07:41 AM

17. Fix root causes

Ending the war on drugs an implementing single payer health care will save more lives then any gun control law. Couple that with a justice system focused on violent individuals and your problem is mostly solved.

Stop fixating on inanimate lumps of steel - people are the problem.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:39 AM

35. And encourage gun owners to actually act responsibily and in society's best interest.

Polluting society with more guns ain't doing it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #35)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:44 AM

37. Since my guns don't pollute I am good to go. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #37)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:54 AM

44. That's what factory owners say too.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bicoastal (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 07:53 AM

19. Every other industrialized democracy has far less gun violence than the US.

We can do much better. The rest of the developed world has figured out how to deal with gun violence via sensible gun restrictions. The US sticks out like a sore thumb. As a point of comparison, one year of gun violence in the US kills more people than died in Iraq, Afghanistan, and 9-11 combined over the last decade.

Hopefully, at some point people in this country will grow weary of losing 30,000 lives every year to guns. Unfortunately, the people at greatest risk of gun violence are people with the least political clout -- the urban poor and minorities -- and the wealthy white conservative males that run the NRA and the GOP have an upper hand politically and are indifferent to the enormous loss of life.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:46 AM

38. Don't they have lower levels of violence in general?

or are they just as violent but using different tools? I am never sure exactly how I am to view the "civilized" world from a grabbers perspective.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #38)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:58 AM

48. No.

Are you just making this up as you go? Their over level of violent crime is about the same. But, thanks to guns, they have far less homicide, because guns are much more deadly than other weapons.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #48)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:07 AM

53. Yet where I live is just as safe as any such country - maybe even safer

as are many places in America. It is almost as if gun violence is geographically concentrated in America due to economic and culture issues like drugs, poverty, gangs, unemployment and despair.

But we know that is impossible, don't we? It has to be guns.

Perhaps we need to fix the root causes of violence?

How about we:

1. End the war on drugs and remove the profit motive that drives much violent crime.

2. Lets empty our prisons of non-violent drug users saving billions to spend on healthcare and education.

3. Lets focus the justice system on violent criminals and get them out of society. Use a weapon for any crime and go away for a very long time.

4. Single payer health care with mental health coverage to reduce suicides and find/treat the crazies.

What do you say? Is that an agenda you can support?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:52 AM

40. What has being an "industrialized democracy" got to do with it?

Not arguing, just asking. Some would say we are not an industrialized democracy at all, but instead are a service society democracy, does it make any difference?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #40)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:01 AM

50. It's for the sake of an apples-to-apples comparison.

There are nations with higher homicide rates than the US, but they are places like Mexico or South Africa, which face a whole different set of social problems. If you compare the US to similar nations like Canada, UK, Australia, France, Germany, etc., we have by far the highest rates of gun violence and homicide.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:52 AM

42. My town is just as safe as every other industrialized democracy

2 gun murders in a population of 60K in the last 15 years. We go years without a shooting - alcohol related deaths are unfortunately a common occurrence.

And it is the same for most of Rhode Island - like every state, gun violence is very geographically concentrated in poor urban neighborhoods struggling with gangs, drugs, poverty and despair.

Perhaps we need to fix the root causes of violence?

How about we:

1. End the war on drugs and remove the profit motive that drives much violent crime.

2. Lets empty our prisons of non-violent drug users saving billions to spend on healthcare and education.

3. Lets focus the justice system on violent criminals and get them out of society. Use a weapon for any crime and go away for a very long time.

4. Single payer health care with mental health coverage to reduce suicides and find/treat the crazies.

What do you say? Is that an agenda you can support?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #42)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:08 AM

54. Of course, there are some towns with lower crime rates.

There are also some towns with little or no poverty, great public schools, etc. Pointing at isolated examples to pretend we don't have a national problem is silly though.

What you seem to keep missing is that the US does not have a problem of violent crime that is out of order with other wealthy nations. We have high rates specifically of homicide, because we have more guns, and crimes committed with guns are much more likely to result in death. So, while I agree with things like improving mental healthcare access, that doesn't mean we don't also need sensible gun laws.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #54)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:15 AM

56. So what additional laws do we need?

I'll go first.

I support requiring background checks on all private sales. It is not a federal issue but states should pass such legislation. My state does.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #56)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:23 AM

60. Licensing and registration for handguns, for one.

Limits on magazine capacities. Reporting requirement for lost or stolen guns. Require background check on all private sales, at the federal level. Limits to bulk purchases (i.e. one a month). Mental health check required to buy a gun/get a gun license.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #60)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:37 AM

65. Licensing and registration will never happen

besides, the cost will astronomical - look how much Canada spent on their failed rifle registry. Also irrelevant to criminals getting guns. There is and will always be a huge pool of weapons that are invisible to the authorities. Organize crime will simply stockpile weapons or smuggle new ones in. If they can smuggle drugs by the truck load then guns are not a problem.

Magazine limits = standard mag the weapon was designed for. No real problem with that - huge mags are unreliable gimmicks anyway. There is a reason they are not use by the military.

Reporting lost and stolen guns - ok. Irrelevant to criminals getting guns however.

Background checks on private sales are a state issue - read your Constitution. The Feds can stretch the Commerce Clause just enough to cover gun shows. But intrastate sales are purely a state matter.

Bulk sales - irrelevant to criminals or mass killers. What's the point besides feeling good?

Mental health checks. On the government dime? So you are willing to put gun owners at the front of the line for government health care? Good luck with that. But what happens when mental healthcare professionals realize that saying no will end the government gravy train when gun owners stop going to see them. Conversely, how long will it take for them to figure out that saying yes means a healthy steady income. See marijuana "prescriptions" if you are puzzled.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #60)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:46 AM

66. Dan ~ you are making too much sense


that is a no no when you are taking about this issue.

Welcome to DU

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #54)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:18 AM

57. Sensible within the limits of strict scrutiny is ok

unfortunately that is the shoals on which most gun control attempts run aground.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:00 AM

49. We have far more people in prison then many other Western nations combined.

The U.S. has about 730 people incarcerated per 100,000 population. Compare that with the following nations:

UK-154 per 100k
Australia-129 per 100k
Germany-83 per 100k

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #49)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:03 AM

52. True, though we do not have higher rates of violent crime.

I'm in favor of both gun control and also dismantling the prison industrial context.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bicoastal (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:49 AM

39. Depends--suicide vs murder are completely different

 

I don't believe suicides should be counted in the numbers because I believe we have the right to end our lives if we so choose. It is our life after all. It is selfish and short-sighted but so are many human decisions.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #39)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:54 AM

45. Since suicides are not declining as much as gun crime, they are useful to pad the numbers. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bicoastal (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:52 AM

41. According to those

who frequent the Gungeon, as many as it takes to uphold the 2nd Amendment. When everyone in the USA is armed and dangerous, we will all be safer (except for those who become a part of the "acceptable statistics").

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bicoastal (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:54 AM

43. How many deaths by automobile are acceptable to you?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bicoastal (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:55 AM

46. drunk drivers cause more deaths than guns in the u.s. annually.

 

should we ban alcohol?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mel Content (Reply #46)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:57 AM

47. Yes.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1-Old-Man (Reply #47)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:19 AM

58. That worked out so well the last time. Didn't it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mel Content (Reply #46)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:26 AM

62. That's not true, actually.

It's a silly analogy in any case, but the facts are, about 30,000 gun deaths, about 10,000 drunk driving deaths each year.

Why is it that pro-gunners have such a difficult problem with the truth?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #62)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:50 AM

68. They don't seem to

understand that false equivalency thing. Guns are good because hammers (and all other tools and sharp objects) can also kill people.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bicoastal (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:03 AM

51. About half of all victims are shot by someone they know - therefore don't hang out with these people

That would reduce the number by half.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #51)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:24 AM

61. I have no friends so I'm safe.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #61)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:33 AM

64. And if you don't go to places where people are shot at times when they are shot, you are even safer

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bicoastal (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:19 AM

59. We could follow Vermont's example where even a 14 year old can carry a handgun

As long as they have written permission to do so from a parent or guardian. A 16 year old can buy a handgun from a private seller without even going thru a background check.

" Concealed Permit:
It is lawful to carry a firearm openly or concealed provided the firearm is not carried with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow
man. There is no permit required to carry concealed.

Requirements:
1. Be of age. In the state of Vermont, that age is 16 or older. You must be at least 16 years of age to legally purchase a gun and keep it loaded on your person in public.
2. Obtain permission from a parent or guardian to carry a gun if you’re under the age of 16. Failure to do so may result in being deemed a delinquent child by the state.
3. Have a clean record if purchasing a firearm. Things like felony convictions and dishonorable military discharge will show up during the federal instant check, and prohibit purchase."

http://www.usacarry.com/vermont_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

Vermont has about the most liberal gun laws (or lax gun laws depending on how one views the issue) in the nation yet it is ranked #34 of all 50 states in firearms deaths per 100k of population.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bicoastal (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:51 AM

69. Locking

Violates GD SoP. Please repost in the gungeon. Thank you.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink