No. If he was determined to kill them, he would try very hard to. Although given that he was old and had emphysema, I'd think his options were a bit limited.

All I'm saying is that, on the whole, it's a good thing if one has to go to extreme lengths to kill someone. Guns dramatically lower the threshold for lethality.

I'm certainly not calling for a ban on guns, and my point is not based on this one incident. It's simply asking a question: how many unjustified deaths do we deem acceptable in order to preserve easy access to handguns?

I'm willing to accept a reasonable number; stuff happens. But what is a reasonable number?

Okay, it's the Brady campaign, but here are the numbers:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/f...ets/?page=home

In 2002, 30,242 were shot to death.

Of that,

17,108 were suicides;
11,829 were homicides;
762 were accidents.

Okay, in a nation the size of ours, I consider 762 accidental deaths a reasonable number. But we should still do what we can to reduce that number, especially because it is the leading cause of death among 10-14 year olds.

The suicides are a tragedy, but if people want to off themselves, they will. I don't think preventing people from having guns is the way to fix that.

That leaves the homicides. The absolute number isn't all that bad, although it's probably high enough to put "shot to death" somewhere in the top 20 causes of death in this country.

More telling, however, is that 77 percent of homicides involve guns.
http://tinyurl.com/bkgd6

Cars, by the way, account for a whopping 0.2 percent of homicides.

So with guns implicated in most homicide deaths, it seems obvious that reasonable restrictions on handguns would drastically reduce the murder rate. Sure, some people would just turn to other methods. But the threshold for lethality would be raised.

So what restrictions would you support if we could reduce gun homicides to, say, 5,000 a year?

That's the sort of conversation I think we should be having.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...affic_dispute/

Two people shot, both survived luckily.

The interesting thing is that in BOTH instances the only way you prevent these people from getting shot is an outright ban on guns. Both men had no criminal record. Both were over 50. One had a long record in the service with an honorable discharge. The other was an ex-Marine on disability, again honorably discharged. Neither was a likely suspect to do this. The only way to control it would have been an outright ban, which I and most are totally against. I am for the fervent prosecution of anyone who uses a gun to harm others. Where there is a will there is a way, if someone wants to do harm they will do it, taking away guns will not change that.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

I'm against an outright ban, too. But would restrictions on carrying have prevented either one, for instance? Or a requirement that the gun be unloaded? Even the few seconds it took to pick up and insert a magazine might have provided time for second thoughts.

I don't know. I'm asking questions.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

Really? Nice stats there Ray... you trot out the same argument nearly everytime someone is shot and the story gains this board's attention. I have heard your "how many is too many" argument before.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

"Gun control opponents can play similar games. The Swiss with 7 million people have hundreds of thousands of fully-automatic rifles in their homes (see GunCite's "Swiss Gun Laws") and the Israelis, until recently, have had easy access to guns (brief summary of Israeli firearms regulations here). Both countries have low homicide rates. "

"The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European country's total murder rates. On the other hand, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Mexico have non-gun murder rates in excess of our total murder rate."

The international homicide rate per 100,000 shows that 3.72 american people will be killed with a gun out of every 100,000. Whereas 1.98 will be killed in a non-gun homicide out of every 100,000. Basically a 2:1 ratio.

But we all knew that, didn't we? So, instead, let us peruse the statistics for England. The homicide rate for England per 100,000 shows that 0.11 people per 100,000 will be killed with a gun. However, 1.30 people per 100,000 will be killed with a non-gun. Basically eleven times greater non-gun deaths compared to gun deaths.

Bear in mind that England has a much lower murder rate than the US, however, it seems that they are proficient in non-gun deaths... now, don't it? But let's look at South Africa or the Philipines.

South African gun deaths per 100,000... 26.60 people per 100,000.. South African deaths by non-gun(usually a tire filled with gasoline and set afire around a persons neck)... 48.70 people per 100,000.

Philipino gun deaths per 100,000... 3.5 per 100,000.. Philipino non-gun deaths... 12.70

Draw your own conclusions.

__________________
I was banned from godlike productions... and loved it.

I don't think you would feel a lot better if that percentage was higher, would you? My husband's cousin was murdered with a gun. I don't think any member of his family once thought about blaming the gun for it, and I don't believe his mother would have felt the tiniest bit better had he been killed by another method. The man in this story (Bishop) had plenty of time to calm down from his road rage. He made the choice not to.

Your heart's not in it, Raytri. Are you just trying to play devil's advocate again?

__________________
Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive. - Theodore Roosevelt

Mass. is not a gun-toting state, is it? I'm assuming that Bishop had a license to carry because he was a former security guard. Gun laws would have to get quite a bit more restrictive before this man would have been affected.

__________________
Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive. - Theodore Roosevelt

I was going to respond to Sinanju, but this makes the point better. Thanks.

I tend to avoid gun-control discussions because you're right, my heart's not in it. It's not a burning issue for me either way. I'm reasonably sure I've never made this argument before anywhere.

But when I see unnecessary deaths, I tend to approach it from a public health perspective: can we reduce the deaths, and at what cost? I tend to think there is a balance in such things, although it often requires a value judgment on the relative worth of each element.

Where is the proper balance between gun rights and public safety? The answer is not 100% in either direction; it's somewhere in the middle.

Just as an example, strict restrictions on handguns don't bother me much. They cause the most mischief, homicidewise, while being the most useless in a "defense against tyranny" sense. Long rifles and even machine guns are far more useful for the latter, and less likely to be used for the former.

So as far as handguns are concerned, it then comes down to how much mischief they prevent vs. how much mischief they cause. And are there precautions we can take to maximize the first while minimizing the latter.

As for Sinanju's numbers, consider Switzerland. Outside the militia-required weaponry (which are rifles, not handguns, by the way) gun ownership is about half ours. And guns still account for about half of their homicides.

http://diodon349.com/Attack_on_America/swiss_guns.htm

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

In both instances these guys chased them, they want out of their way to drive after these people so they could shoot them. If the minutes it took to do that didn't give them time to think then the few seconds it takes to load a gun won't.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

Less than half... per 100,000 people the Swiss murde rate is 1.32.. the gun murder rate is .58 and the non-gun rate is .74.... Maybe we should really work on banning their swiss army knives? Hmm? Those tweezers and corkscrews can be deadly.... I recommend the French army knife called the "old Yeller"

http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...harmyknife.htm

__________________
I was banned from godlike productions... and loved it.

Well, there's a qualitative difference between chasing someone (no crime committed yet), and making the decision to shoot someone (major crime). In my younger days I sometimes followed people who p*ssed me off. It would have been a serious reality check for me to reach into the glove compartment and pull out a gun, and *another* serious reality check to load the magazine, chamber a round and flip off the safety.

In the Army, I was a lot more alert immediately after being issued live ammo than I was before or after. Before, your rifle is just an expensive club; after, you get used to it and don't think about it so much, other than the usual precautions like keeping it safed and not pointing it at anyone. But during the transition from one state to the other, you're keenly aware of what you're doing.

Every little bit helps, maybe?

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.