The Great (Gun Ban) Hoax Liberals are pushing. Lets do the math

There are roughly 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 329,059,091.

Do the math: 0.00925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100.

And how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities.
All 4 of those cities have the strictest gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Taking away guns gives control to governments.
The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Which is the reason for the great gun ban hoax.

 

They want "assault weapons"... where does that plug into your numbers... I guess if someone kills with a .22 that is an assault weapon... If they get an inch, they will take a mile.

 

How is banning abortions the solution to abortion but giving everyone more guns is the solution to gun violence?

 

To a lib if it’s black and scary looking then it’s an assault weapon
Take an AR, paint it pinks and they be good wit it.

 

why do those who think that there is a constitutional right to an abortion believe there is no constitutional right for individuals to own firearms? why do abortion rights activists think that the proper way to salve their butt hurt over the pending supreme court reversal of Roe V Wade is to push for gun bans

 

I haven't suggested banning guns.

I simply asked a question.

You seem upset.

Calm down.

 

You don' know what sort of mental state I am in.

you are making stuff up

don't make stuff up

don't tell others what to do

Thanks

 

No one is banning all guns,. most guns, etc. This is a facetious argument being made while using fear and ignorance as your core concepts.

You are not using statistics rationally. You are essentially arguing that "even eating carrots will cause you to die" argument, and that is a statistical bias you are providing here.

Furthermore, the United States is not the only country with the right to own firearms but the United States is the only country with the problem of firearm homicides more than the top ten countries combined that have rights to firearms like Switzerland, the Philippines, Mexico, Guatemala, and others. Three Countries have Constitutional rights, US, Mexico, and Guatemala, and another 15 countries have a statutory right to keep and bear arms, such as the Philippines, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, and Honduras. In either case, the right is either explicit or implied under their laws.

No amendment in the US Constitution is absolute, not even the 2a and in the entire history of the 2a, not even the Founding Fathers would agree with today's NRA doctrine that no limits should be placed on purchasing firearms. And if you actually read the Heller Case, not even that case is arguing what you argued in your OP. Not even close.

Finally, depending on the category will depend on the options available. For instance, suicides are preventable whether by firearm, drug overdose, hanging or whatever method a person uses. The key to suicide is suicide prevention. However, if someone is feeling suicidal, the last thing you want to do is hand them a firearm, a long piece of rope, or drugs. If you do that and knowlingly they are suicidal, then you should be charged too, just as that teenager Tyerell Przybycien or Michelle Carter, were charged and convicted of helping a person commit suicide. Does not matter if it is text, firearm, or whatever. But then again, the NRA and its supporters like Condor088 don't want that, do they?

I don't think a line of duty death should be considered if and only if all the protocols were followed. Shooting at a moving car going AWAY from the police officer is not what I call following protocols. But this will depend on facts and circumstances, the shooting investigation, and whether charges should be filed, like in the Amber Guyger case for instance, among other instances.

Believe it or not, most criminals purchase their firearms legally; that is, private purchases among other individuals in which no background check or even basic questions are even asked. And if the police come asking, then you will probably give a half-arsed answer that the gun was stolen or that you didn't know he would commit the crime or that you didn't know he was a felon at all. And that is where some of the problems are and the loopholes that have to be dealt with through universal background checks. Close these loopholes and the availability of firearms to be purchased by criminals will go down and allow the police to focus on the people flaunting the laws to sell to known felons. This would include ghost guns, straw purchases, etc. No ban on firearms, but tightening the loopholes so that they cannot be flaunted indiscriminately will help a lot.

Finally, we need to change the culture of firearms, the machovisn of pro-gun ownership that Condor is expressing now.

 

Please explain how UBC's will work wothout total gun registration. And how it can be verifed thst you bought or sold a gun through a private sale that you've owned prior to UBC?

 

THose numbers include the magical assault weapon

 

Don't know, Why don't you crate a thread and explain it or show us the abortion right in the constitution.
In the mean time, its obvious the left is exaggerating gun violence.

 

Nope just used real numbers. But I see you didn't dispute those numbers.

The only numbers I am using are gun deaths. Try again

Deflection, has nothing to do with the OP

Shall not be infringed is pretty absolute. You should quit quoting your idiot president.

Deflection, has nothing to do with the OP

Deflection, has nothing to do with the OP

Deflection, has nothing to do with the OP

The Op is about the real numbers of gun deaths.

 

10-yard penalty.... Unfair use of mathematics and logic....

When people are arguing from emotion and hyperbolic hysterics it's unfair to use facts and math and logic on them!

 

But--but--but, the whole present controversy is based on a fallacy. ARs are NOT assault rifles. AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle, and they are usually chambered for the .223 round which is not high-powered; it is a medium power round. The AR is a SEMIautomatic rifle that fires ONE ROUND per trigger pull, like many, many rifles and handguns. Sorry, bud.

 

I wouldn't doubt it.

 

The AR is the civilian version of the M-16, which is definitely an ASSAULT weapon for the military.

 

Do you understand the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and one witjh select fire?

 

Select fire mean switch auto and semi auto.

 

A fair point- banning **** doesnt fix either problem.

 

We've had UBCs here in WA for 6 years now. The results are: no demonstrable decrease in gun crime (in fact a slight increase recently), a single conviction for 'straw purchasing' (after the buyer shot someone) and an increase in administrative costs for tracking firearm purchases (a registry by proxy) of an extra $10M per year.

UBCs are just another scam/excuse for the govt to spend more money.

 

The .223 is NOT medium power but high power deriving this increased effectiveness from velocity not weight. Derived from varmint rounds it will kill a human quite effectively at all but the farthest ranges but it does cause greater soft tissue trauma in so doing thus resulting in more wounded than dead enemy who each pull themselves and 2 more soldiers off the front line. The main difference with the old 30 caliber however is that it is lighter to carry as witness the incredible 100 round magazine of the Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) truly a machine gun nest you carry along.

 

The .223Remington is a varmint round. The 5.56x45NATO is the military round and packs more punch. Both rounds are 'high velocity' enough to reliably kill an unprotected human. Both rounds also suffer from penetration issues. I'm told US servicemembers overseas staffing vehicle checkpoints in hostile areas will commonly swipe an enemy's old AK and keep it handy for in the case of a vehicle charging the checkpoint because even the 5.56 has been known to fail to penetrate a common car windsheild, whereas an old AK firing 7.62x39, while typically a 'lower velocity' round, has the bullet weight needed to not deflect off the glass. Newer AKs are 5.45x39, very similar in size and power to the 5.56x45, and similarly suffers from low penetration vs things that are not flesh. Both .223 and 5.56 rounds have the same bullet and case dimensions (but with different bullet weights and/or different powder charges) and can technically both be fired from any weapon designed to operate using the other, though a 5.56 may explode the chamber of a gun designed for .223 and a .223 may not properly cycle a weapon designed for 5.56, though this would mostly apply to older weapons, newer ones are usually designed for both (but still always check first!).

As to 'what is an assault rifle'... both the assault rifle ban of the 90s and the one tried in 2012 banned every variation of AR in existence but did not ban the Ruger Mini-14 (or 'Ranch Rifle). The Mini 14 is available in .223 or .223/5.56, utilizes a magazine that can be 'high capacity' and fires in semi-auto. There is no functional difference between the Mini-14 and the civilian-legal AR. What made one an 'assault rifle' and the other 'not' was purely cosmetic- the Mini-14 did not come from the factory with a pistol grip. And also Ruger signed on in support of the ban, likely because they thought they were going to corner the market on semi-auto rifles by banning their competition... (I will never buy Ruger new because of this. **** them no matter how good their guns are... and they are good, so I will consider buying them used, but Ruger gets none of my money). 'Assault rifle' is a perfectly meaningless political term.

 

Here's a plan I came up with: (from the What's the argument against background checks for private gun sales? thread)

Let's puzzle this from a blank sheet approach. Going in, there should be no delusions that anything derived will be perfect, but imperfection should not be an excuse to do nothing.

Given:
There is an unknown and uncountable number of private firearms in These United States.
Constitutionally those firearms are guaranteed to be untouchable by the Government and the Government has no business knowing anything about them.
We have a problem involving violent and manic people committing atrocities against society and they need to be identified to keep them from purchasing a firearm.
We have a database of convicted felons that is checked before any American can buy a firearm.

Goal:
To get and keep Government out of invasive firearm regulation.
Get Government involved in making sure firearms sales are only to sane, trained, responsible people without criminal, violent or disqualifying mental problems; while no records of sales are retained by Government.
Expand NCIS to encompass mental health and violent behavior.
Keep fee costs down while using them to help pay the cost of maintaining the database.

So to help get "gun guys" on board demand the ALL records on firearm ownership held by the government (Fed - State - Other) be destroyed and no further ownership records be generated.
ALL gun sales are contingent on passing the enhanced Background Check.
Failed Checks can be appealed.
No criminal penalties involved
Heavy fines if the law is circumvented
Private sales MUST be run through a FFL agent that will run a BGC on the purchaser.
Once the BGC is final and the transfer is approved or denied associated records are destroyed.
Inherited guns require the heir to pass "ONE" BGC by an FFL agent. If inheritance involves multiple heirs, each heir must pass a BGC.
Failure to comply with the "Enhanced BGC" law would be penalized by a stiff fine, no criminal penalty would be part of the law.

What else?

 

SO, your position is that hundreds of deaths by manic, violent misfits is insignificant statistically and isn't worth the effort, or thought, as to how to prevent our loved ones being shot to death at the grocery store or our children being murdered at school?

It is NOT insignificant if it's your loved one taken from you by a madman that should have been identified and helped long before he/she went on a murderous rampage.

 

Please stop talking about firearms. You've already said you know nothing about them and this post is simply further verification.