You seek to hold gun owners responsible for their actions on the one hand, but don't seem to have the same position when it comes to criminals. Bottom line is people who commit crime are responsible for those decisions, and in every case you listed that person made a choice to do something stupid. If you decide to do something stupid, you pay the price. I'm not one of those people that blame the victim and try to hug the criminal. I doubt it's much consolation to a rape victim that it's the criminals "first offense".
I'd rather allow victims to protect themselves, which deters or sometimes prevents that crime and future crimes. Why are the vast majority of mass shooting in "gun free" areas? Answer: Criminals like their odds better there.
So car dealers, pool salespeople, trampoline sellers, department stores that sell knives, etc. should be held responsible for what someone does with the wares they sold them......WOW That's a double eye popper
Incorrect. We have been over this countless times. Is it truly necessary to go over the matter countless more times, explaining how firearms can easily be stolen from their rightful owners by someone who should not have access to them? Must we really rehash each and every realistic way any proposal can be easily subverted, and rendered moot?
If someone chooses to commit a violent crime that gets themselves killed, it was their decision, and their fault alone. Society is not at fault if someone chooses to go on a crime spree, because they made the conscious decision to carry out those specific actions. A requirement that can easily be foiled by the seller filing a false police report about the firearm being stolen by the one who was seeking to buy it. Even if it is stolen? Anyone that would seek to use a firearm to further a crime because it benefits them.
'No man is an island' What 'violent crime' are you thinking is the common denominator here? A young kid wielding a gun because he has been bullied into joining a gang? A requirement that can easily be foiled by the seller filing a false police report about the firearm being stolen by the one who was seeking to buy it. Even if it is stolen? Anyone that would seek to use a firearm to further a crime because it benefits them.[/QUOTE] So let us look at some research www.nasponline.org/resources/crisis_safety/Youth_Gun_Violence_Fact...
The obvious question of "so what?" must be asked. How does the saying apply in this specific context? Any crime where the perpetrator made the deliberate decision to utilize a firearm for their own purposes, despite knowing that their actions were wrong and illegal. Your link is broken. Therefore the validity of the supposed research remains questioning. Furthermore, your source cites Kellerman. Kellerman has been discredited for a significant period of time, and his claims debunked.
Well, if they made those laws apply to someone with a firearm, they would have to make that apply to car ownership. It's your car, you should have it under wraps, with a steering wheel boot and all. If someone steals your car and runs a light and kills someone, the owner of the car is liable... Does that sound fair? Of course you're going to say no, because you have a car, and you're not afraid to use a car. It's the same concept though whether you like it or not. A violent criminal is someone who has used force against another individual for any means. This means that a person that hit his wife and went to jail for it cannot own a firearm. Someone who stole something from a store and used a weapon to scare the victim, is a violent criminal. Anything that you go to jail for where you used force in one way or another puts you on the no buy list.
This is going to be fun. First, let me point out that the authors of your publication that you are using as evidence, are very very anti gun, and they didn't use any kind of logical sense when making their findings. They actually didn't use the CDC's information on firearm contributed deaths, or the FBI's database at all, which is very surprising because they never once told anyone (after the publication originally came out, they were hammered for their sources) where they got their actual numbers. < That right there is a major red flag. They also used multiple years to explain the rates of crimes in a single year, how that makes any sense is beyond me... . Some of their previous work before the study was (and I actually joked about this in the thread I started) literally just about going around to inner city neighborhoods, and ONLY asking questions to those people, it was in Detroit I believe. Then the went on to say that their findings were normal everywhere without actually saying that they did it in a poverty stricken area in Detroit. They're liars at best and have been called out on it many times. The fact that ANY organization would use their publication that for all intensive purposes was made up, should show you how biased that specific organization actually is, and that means you just can't trust them. Onto the quotes from the posted publication... This was a quote: "The number of suicide, homicide, and unintentional firearm deaths among youth (ages 5-14) is higher in states and regions where guns are more prevalent." Let me first say that suicides happen everywhere, and firearms have absolutely NOTHING to do with suicides and to think that means that a inanimate object has some kind of mental grasp on a person..... Let me give you some FACTS. Lets look at the numbers for 2013, all of my FACTS are from the CDC, and the FBI. In 2013, the CDC says that 33,636 people died by means of firearms. The FBI says that 8454 people died by being murdered with firearms. The CDC also said that 41,149 people committed suicide in 2013. Suicides from firearms is also a listed category with the CDC in which accounted for 21,175. That means that the numbers that your "experts" made up, were wrong since only half of the number of suicides involved firearms. Do you see how they made you, and others that don't do their homework think something completely incorrect to forward their anti-gun idea? They said that suicide was higher where guns were more prevalent... by the numbers, that's a crock of BS. The second quote: "States with a higher percentage of homes with firearms tend to have higher rates of suicide by firearm." We know from the numbers I listed above, this is a bunch of crap also since firearms by the numbers are used in almost exactly half of suicides. I could also point out that a home with a firearm (this is common sense) is more likely to have a suicidal person commit suicide with a firearm than a house without one. Yes, that statement if they worded it like that, but they didn't, would be correct, and common sense... Someone that doesn't have a gun already is going to use something else, half of the people that committed suicide prove that point. They aren't going to go out and steal a gun to use on themselves, they're just going to use what they have. Even if the three liars that wrote that publication said what I did above, everyone would just say "duh", and leave it at that. Suicides have not a damn thing to do with firearms, it's just that firearms if available are the best choice for a crazy person. That person would use another tool if a firearm wasn't available to them however and that's why firearms have nothing to do with suicides. The third lie: "There is a strong, significant relationship between gun availability and homicide; of all developed nations, the U.S. has the highest rate of civilian gun ownership, highest homicide rates..." The US doesn't have the highest homicide rate... the US is actually in about the middle of the group when compared to the rest of the countries around the world. You can just look that up pretty easily. The fact that anyone would believe that line of crap is amazing, and a testament of how gullible people are. We don't rank in the top category for murders with firearms either. I mean really, when are people going to stop listening to stupid people like the ones that wrote the article, and do homework for themselves? Fourth lie: "Cross-sectional studies have shown that areas with higher rates of possession of household firearms have disproportionately higher numbers of death by homicide." They didn't actually use ANY studies of factual sources. Why do I say that? Because they wouldn't share any of their sources when they were drilled on all of their "facts" that people proved wrong with real facts from the CDC, FBI, and other sources. There are over 400 million legally owned firearms in the USA, the biggest population of violent deaths happen in places like Detriot, Chicago, and Washington D.C. to name a few. What do those places have in common? They all have very strict gun control laws where firearm ownership is very low for the law abiding citizen. Funny the way that works... It also proves gun control as a whole, a major failure as those cities are the most dangerous places to live, and go figure, THERE IS GUN CONTROL IN PLACE THERE. If you look at FACTS and figures pulled up by state and how many guns there are legally registered by state, if the authors were correct, the amount of firearms SHOULD follow with the homicide rate. However, this isn't even close to being the truth! Fifth lie: "The risks associated with a gun in the home (e.g., increased gun accidents, homicide, intimidation, completed suicide) are greater than their benefits." Again, this is opinion based on lies. I will write it again, there are over 400 million legally owned firearms in the United States, this was also as of last year... so more now. The last records kept by the FBI as of right now are for 2013, and even if we scale that 400 (which was 2014's number) back to 2013 standards, lets call it 350 million, there were still just 8454 murders where a firearm was involved. Percentage wise... you are more likely to be killed by your neighbor who swings a baseball bat than one who has a gun. My main question is still, why can't people that are for gun control come up with factual evidence based on REAL numbers supported by FACTUL evidence like the CDC, FBI, or some other organization might publish? I ask this because I have NEVER seen any good arguments based on actual FACTS from the other side. There are always "opinions", but in the end, those don't matter, they just don't.
Let's apply this same concept to everything we sell. If you are selling your used car to someone then it is your responsibility to check their driving record and ensure they have no speeding tickets or reckless driving violations, no DUI's, DWI's etc. If you own a car you are responsible for who drives that car. If you let your buddy borrow your car and he gets hammered at the bar and drives home and rams into a school bus then you go to prison for vehicular homicide. If you sell your used car to someone who has a history of street racing and they lose control and fly through someone's living room then you are responsible. If I buy a brand new Mustang Cobra and play speed racer on the interstate and plow into a family van on vacation then the Ford dealership should be sued and the dealer arrested and imprisoned. If you have a garage sale and you sell a baseball bat and glove to someone and a week later they get into a domestic dispute and bash their wife's head in with it then you are responsible for that. You should have done a thorough background check to see if they had a history of domestic violence. Is that fair to you? Why do such things only apply to firearms. If we want to take away individual responsibility in regards to firearms then we need to take away individual responsibility in regards to everything people do. Anything that I do is the responsibility of whoever sold me the item, not my own responsibility. I should be able to sue Jack Daniel's for providing the whiskey that impaired the driver who slammed into the back of my truck. I should be able to sue Dodge for providing the truck that the impaired driver used to slam into the back of my truck. If I'm responsible for selling a gun to someone who then commits a crime with it then you must be held responsible for selling a car to someone who commits a crime with it. You can't have a double standard. Personal responsibility is either all or nothing, you can't pick and choose when it's an individuals fault when it's convenient for you.
Perfect head shot on the perp. [video=youtube;3uLj99118zg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uLj99118zg[/video]
I'm tellin ya, the gun store that sold that gun to the law abiding citizen should be held liable for the death of that criminal...according to the anti-gun holy grail that is
Actually something like that DOES happen here. If you lend your car to someone without a driving license and they get pulled over you are likely to be fronting court as well - especially if there has been a fatality. There are big ad campaigns here about not letting someone you know drive home drunk - and bars will cut you off if they think you are going to drive over the limit So yes there are social and legal responsibilities around driving, There should be some social and legal responsibilities about guns in America Or are hoplophiles fine with handing out Bazookas to inmates of mental institutions?
There is a difference between lending something to someone and selling it to someone. If I lend my car out to somebody without a license and they get in trouble and I get in trouble then fine, Ill buy that. If I SELL something to someone and they get in trouble then thats a different story. You said it yourself, the "owner" can be held responsible. If I sold it then I'm no longer the owner. At what point do we waive the original owner of responsibility? Is there a time limit? A statute of limitations per say? I have a nicely modified old school V8 mustang that sits in my garage most of the time. If I decide to sell it to a young person who guns it down his street and runs over a child next week should I be responsible for that? Should I have refused to sell it to him due to his age? What if he runs somebody over 6 months from now? 6 years? I can understand your point about saying people should be responsible and do a little research and use common sense and judgement before selling things. But should the person who sold and/or manufactured the item be held responsible for the actions of the purchaser? Should my wife be able to to sue Jameson distillery if I drank a 5th of their whiskey and beat her up in a drunken rage? Or should I go to prison for domestic assault and that be the end of it? What if I sell my car to a mature 45 year old man with an impeccable driving history who then has a fight with his wife and goes out drinking and tries to drive the car home and kills somebody? Is that my fault? Again, I do agree with you, people should have some common sense when it comes to the private selling of potentially dangerous things. However, if we are going to implement such laws then we have to implement them across the board. I build up cars as a hobby and I've built plenty of 500-600whp cars in my day. I sell them when Im done building them up. I am allowed to sell my car to anybody I want to, all I have to do is sign the title over to them and that's it. Maybe write up a bill of sale if the state wants it. I've actually been in a situation with a friend of mine who I sold my car to. After selling it he never got it registered in his name. About 6 months later he gets pulled over for something bad enough to get the car impounded. The impound lot sends me the bill and the cops actually call me because the title was technically still in my name. I tell the impound lot that the car was sold 6 months ago, I tell the cops the same. I provide them the bill of sale and my friend is forced to give up the title that shows it was transferred into his name. Moral of the story is that I was no longer legally responsible for anything at all to do with that car because I sold it. Him not registering it in his name isn't my fault, and it's nothing I can force somebody to do once they drive away with it. He ended up going to jail for whatever it was he did that got him pulled over, probably drunk driving or street racing or something. Either way it wasn't my fault, and that's how it should be. If we want to hold original gun owners responsible for firearms after they legally leave their possession then we should hold car owners the same. Can't force one group to be responsible while allowing the other to not.
Good and thoughtful reply - thank-you I think with firearms the onus should be on the buyer to hold a permit and on the seller to ensure that they have sighted the permit. We do not have private sales of firearms here and if your firearm is used in the act of a crime - you have to show you have not been an accomplice in that crime http://loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php Apparently this has made illegal firearms so expensive to buy that there is a black market 'renting' them! I mean - here you first have to raise enough money to hire a gun for the day BEFORE you commit a crime with it - and it you are caught you 'own' it - which means you are then obligated to repay full price to the criminal who sold it to you But really the main reason why our firearm mortality rate has fallen seems to be less the selling of firearms than the securing of the firearm
I understand your line of thinking. I have a plethora of firearms and with the exception of a single 12ga shotgun all of my firearms have been bought through private sales and most being bought from friends. I have also sold firearms privately, however, I always do my best to ensure the buyer is a responsible person. I've sold firearms to private parties, but not before speaking and meeting with the person on multiple occasions to ensure I get to know them first. I invite all to the local range with me and asked them to bring their own guns as well. I wanted to make sure these folks had guns of their own, were responsible with them, and weren't up to no good. Both guys turned out to be responsible gun owners and members of the NRA. To this day I still keep in contact with one of them and he routinely shows me videos of him shooting off the AK-47 that I sold him and updates me on modifications he's done. I feel comfortable having sold him that gun. While I believe myself to be a responsible gun seller I don't know if it should be illegal to not be as thorough as I am. Plenty of other folks are surely even more thorough than I am when selling their firearms privately. I have personally denied selling a firearm to plenty of people before. A few years ago I had an AR-15 for sale and all sorts of people inquired about it. It looked "cool" with it's red dot sight and pistol grip. I turned down plenty of them, even those who offered more money than I was asking because "they really wanted an AR!". To me my conscience overrides money. While I didn't think any of these folks would shoot up a school with my guns or anything I just didn't feel comfortable selling it to a younger kid who to me seemed reckless. I ended up selling it to an older gentleman who was going to "take all that Call of Duty looking stuff off of it and use it to hunt coyotes". I personally felt comfortable selling it to him, he seemed like a responsible person in my eyes. I am by no means whatsoever a perfect person, but I do take things seriously. I understand that firearms can be extremely dangerous in the hands of the irresponsible and the insane. I do whatever I can to ensure that none of my guns end up in the hands of anybody who would use them for illegal purposes. Can I accurately judge someone just by talking to them for awhile? Absolutely not. But I feel no remorse having sold any of my guns to any of the people who have them now. But from what I have seen the majority of responsible gun owners DO take such precautions. As I said before I buy my guns through private sellers and not once have I ever been able to just walk up to somebody and buy a gun without any questions being asked. Responsible gun owners are just that, responsible. One particular gentleman wanted me to prove that I had some sort of experience with firearms before even agreeing to let me see it. I had to show him my military ID in order for him to even bring it out of his house. I went to inquire about a Steyr Aug from a guy and he took the time to show me the proper way to load it, safe it, handle it, and shoot it at the range. He also asked about my background and again showing him my military ID calmed his nerves. Now I am a realist, I know not all folks are responsible but from my experience the good majority of them are. I don't think private gun owners are out selling their weapons to any ol fool who happens to walk up to them. They seem to take the time and effort to ensure their firearms are going into responsible hands. I don't personally believe the system is broken to the point of needing government intervention.
That is very commendable but unfortunately in society we have to deal with the LCD's - Lowest Common Denominators. They are the reason we have mandated speed limits and blood alcohol levels I really wish everyone were as responsible - unfortunately Americas gun fatality rate speaks otherwise One of the things that is very hard to predict though is the suicide intent - especially if someone gets drunk and 'down'. I know you would feel horrible if someone who bought a gun from you used it to commit suicide - especially since the options that do not include guns are more likely to be survivable without long term disability. This is one of the reasons why gun security has affected our firearm mortality - by making the gun more inaccessible to the impulse suicide victim it has reduced mortality
In the US, there are basically just as many non gun related suicides as there are gun related suicides. This proves that people that have made the decision to kill themselves don't need a gun to do it. If guns weren't available, these people would find another method, just like the other half did.
No in fact it proves the opposite Now let us look at survivability of the attempted suicide, remembering that the vast majority who attempt never do it again https://www.afsp.org/understanding-suicide/facts-and-figures
That is true, the idiots of the world are the ones who set laws, not the responsible. Why don't we have an autobahn in America? Because some dumbass teenager would go 150mph in his parent's corvette and kill himself or others. I am failing to see how any sort of background check would prevent a suicide though. Yes you are absolutely correct I would feel pretty bad if I sold a firearm to someone who used it to kill themselves. Studies have shown that many suicide victims show very few outward signs of wanting to commit the act, and the time between thinking about suicide and actually committing to the act is often very short, as little as 20 mins in some cases. I will say this, if the government required that citizens receive a copy of a background check before selling a firearm then I wouldn't personally be against it. I will however be against the government forcing a mandated registration of all firearms in the US. My biggest problem with that is that if you get a background check then that means it's on record. If it's on record then that means the government knows about it. I personally believe that the US Constitution allows the US citizens to own firearms and I believe that a US gun registration gives the government a means to track everyone with firearms and gives them a means to take them away if they ever so choose. Perhaps my thinking is flawed, but I believe that taking away the guns of the law abiding citizens of the US would spell more trouble than leaving us be. We simply have way too many guns here to get rid of them all.
Up until a speed crazed Japanese Cannon Ball Run contestant ploughed through a crowd the Northern Territory had a wide open speed limit - now it is 130 KPH And this is where slowing access to mode of suicide is very effective at preventing it - the kid gets drunk and moody decides to shoot himself but it is going to take more effort to remember where the keys to the gun safe are or the combination his parents use - and that is enough time to either sober up, change his mind or pass out, depending ITA about trying to take guns from Americans - that would be short course in how to look like a sieve. But there is a lot that can be done short of that - including the firearm security issue
And yet many of the countries with the highest suicide rates have abysmally low gun ownership rates (Lithuania, South Korea, Japan, etc) The draw of using a firearm for suicide is that its the least painful alternative, but it doesn't seem to inhibit suicide in places they are not available.
That is because there is a greater correlation with suicide and length of the day than there is with gun ownership. I am not talking about depressive suicide but spur of the moment suicides. And it is about survivability. Men have a lower survival rate than women because women take pill while men eat lead - or use other violent means
Ultimately what does it matter? If someone is likely to commit suicide in a spur of the moment situation, then their mental stability is highly questionable. Preventing a single incident will do nothing to stop them from trying again in the future. And as we have seen, the mental healthy system is the united states does not work because nobody says anything until it is well past being too late.
Ideas like this are why we have to remove the file from 2" nail clippers before we fly. Someone might get a sudden urge to stab someone, you never know right. If this were really a problem to begin with, it would be obvious because we would have the highest suicide rate in the world. Australia is what, 1 or 1.5 per 100k fewer suicides than the US despite your lack of guns? Non-issue.
