Taken from this article here(sixth post down in the comments) http://landolakes.patch.com/blog_posts/doctors-in-gun-deaths-underplayed-by-media-and-politicians "Let's put your statistics in perspective. Two thirds of the deaths caused by guns are suicides. The remaining 11000 deaths can be divided thus: 75% is gang related violence, and of the remaining 2700 deaths, 400 are caused by police and 250 are justifiable self defense. If you aren't a criminal, you have very little to worry about. In the US there are only 2050 homicides per year of people who are not in gangs, or shot by police, or shot by someone defending themselves. Around 1500 people a year win at least $1 million in America's lotteries. From the CDC: 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings 2,640 (not including firefighters) die in fires. 13,300 die from falls. 31,755 die from unintentional poisoning. 80,000 alcohol related deaths. 200,000 deaths by medical mistakes. 300,000,000 guns in the country, and your chance of being killed by one is statistically equal to winning a million dollars in the lottery." Added by me: If you want to get really specific, you are about 33% more likely to be killed by a gun than to win a million dollars in the lottery
Not being a psychologist, I don't feel qualified to discuss the number of suicides that would be averted if the emotionally unstable person had to take a moment to consider his options, rather than having instant painless (albeit messy) death at their fingertips. Great, 75% of deaths could be avoided by passing legislation that would make it more difficult for gangbangers to get their hands on guns... Of course, that legislation would be called "gun control" and would affect everyone since you can't make a discriminatory law that singles out one demographic. I wonder how many of those police-related deaths were as a result of a criminal having a firearm and the police being forced to open fire? See above about keeping guns away from criminals. I wonder what makes a self-defense "justifiable"... Probably "not enough evidence to prosecute" in some cases. Zimmerman comes to mind. As long as only a few thousand people are dying every year of gun murders, I guess we can just ignore the accidental shootings that aren't included in these statistics, as well as the shootings that maim instead of killing.
Great point,everything else is just you trying to hard. You really have no real argument beyond this first and GOOD point. I actually think people should be allowed to kill themselves with Doctors, but that's jmo. Actually the gun laws do not effect these guys at all, the guns they have now, and will have in the future are illegally obtained. If they're doing that now, you think they will follow new laws. While you are at it, make cooking meth illegal so we can stop them with that law too. I don't know, look it up, don't just guess. The criminals with the illegal guns, who haven't followed the gun laws yet, but will when we enact the new ones? Speculation on your part, you're guessing. I agree we shouldn't ignore it, in fact I'll do you one better, the people who lost their lives deserve a serious talk about how to prevent this in the future, not just guessing what will work.
Yes the chances, overall, of being killed by a gun are quite small in the US. If you like in a Amish or Mennonite community in the safety of the rural sticks, your chances are almost zero. If you live the in worst areas of the US, all in urban druggie/ganglands, your chances of being a victim of a crime is up to one in four. Being killed by a firearm in one of these places is even higher. The population of Detroit is about 700,000 and in 2012 there were 411 homicices, or one chace in 1703 of being killed. But crimes do no occur randomly. They occur at the worst neighborhoods with the worst people who live there. Crime does not just suddenly stop at a certain street, it radiates outward in a "bell-shaped curve" pattern. The closer you are, the more risk you are at. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/detroit-murders-2012-bing_n_2402372.html Once urban crime havens are taken out of the picture, violent crime and murders are about the same for the rest of the US as they are for most of Western Europe. [
, Where do you believe criminals are getting their guns? Firearm registration - which is one aspect of "gun control" - would end straw purchases. Similarly, liability insurance on firearms would help minimize occurances of firearm theft by criminals...
Registration won't end straw purchases. It really won't change anything. Right now the police, FBI or ATF can track down who originally bought a gun. Registration will just make that a little easier.
I call BS. If a gun is used in a crime today, what good does it do the police to determine it was originally sold to me in 1980, particularly if I sold in a private sale in 1983? Treating weapon registration just like vehicle registration is a viable option, as it would include private sales.
Registration can lead to confiscation, wether it is there ultimate objective or not, it is a gun owners best intrest to stay as far away from confiscation as possible. It is also on the minds of many gun owners alike that there are more effective ways to reduce gun violence.
A thirty year old gun purchase isn't a straw purchase. How do you expect registration to make any difference in straw purchases? If you buy a gun from any dealer today, that sale is logged. Registration would just be a different form of logging. If I then sold the gun, no one would know unless I or the buyer choose to register the sale. I doubt a straw purchaser or illegal buyer would register the sale. If the gun is found in a crime, the police currently track down the buyer through the sale record, if registration was enacted, it would lead to the exact same person as the police currently find. There would be no difference at all.
The judges, cops, and lawyers that I have seen over and over again on different news channels claim that a huge percentage(I thought about 80%) of criminals had obtained their guns illegally. That means the black market or they had someone buy a gun for them, and probably other means as well. Which means that gun law will not really have that much of an effect on gun crimes or the criminals that commit them.
I can touch on this. You need to have four elemtns for a shooting to be justified. You need ability, opportunity, intent, and jeopardy. I can explain them again you want, but I think I did somewhere else.
Right, and since Zimmerman's only jeopardy came from his decision to follow and harass another person - against direct instructions by the police - then his shooting was not justified... And that's IF you accept there was any jeopardy at all.
You're half right... Most criminals have friends/family purchase for them (this is known as a "straw purchase"). Registration of ALL sales (including private) would end straw purchases, because you could prove the offender without catching the offenders red-handed.
But if all sales were registered, the police could easily see who the last owner was prior to the gun(s) getting into criminal hands... What's so hard to understand about this? - - - Updated - - - Why doesn't this apply to car registration? Name 3 other effective ways of reducing gun violence...
In straw purchases, the person who bought from the store is the last owner before the guns got into criminal hands. That is the whole point of straw purchases - someone with a clean record buys guns from a dealer for someone who can't legally buy them. If the gun isn't bought from a dealer, there is no need for the straw buyer. How is registration supposed to do anything about straw purchases?
You've totally missed the point. A straw purchase is one in which "Person A" (who cannot legally purchase a firearm) convinces "Person B" (who can legally purchase a firearm) to act as his agent in a transaction with "Person C" (the gun owner). Person C does NOT have to be a dealer, as a straw purchase can also occur during a private sale. As such, a gun purchased from a dealer 30 years ago could become involved in a straw purchase tomorrow; at a gun show, for example. Right, this means that - if a gun has been sold several times since it was in the possession of a dealer, the police have VERY limited ability to identify who it last legally belonged to.... After all, private sales are legal transfer of ownership and are often undocumented.
If the purchase is not from a dealer, there is no need for a straw buyer. The criminal can just go to the person with the gun and save himself the $100 he'd have to pay the straw buyer.
Not if we had registration for private sales like we do for cars... As for the straw purchase scenario, there is a gaping hole (on purpose?) that makes current controls worthless: Let's imagine I purchase a number of firearms from a licensed dealer, which I hand over to a friend with a criminal record. When the police knock on my door to ask about a crime that's been committed with a weapon I purchased, I can just claim I sold them in a private sale... This flaw would also be remedied through registration of private sales...
So they just say the gun was stolen instead. . . Actually if we do registration just like cars, nothing will change, since with cars it is on the buyer to actually register the sale. You just say that you sold the gun and the buyer must not have registered it.
Your seriously asking about cars right now? Cars aren't any bit relevant to this situation, its a completely different animal. A vehicle does not stand between us and the government, as the second amendment does. Great comparison though... Gun violence has dropped dramaticly WITHOUT gun control, but to improve it further, 1) Better mental health programs, including more group homes as apposed to institutions (they are proven to be more effective) 2) Better parental programs, not monetary help, developmental help. 3) More inner city children programs scince gang violence is the MAIN problem 4) Different rating systems and process for violent media and they should no longer be geared toward children. And as I always say, safety classes should be taken every time you renew your lisence. This class should consist of safe handling, safe keeping and safe, responsible defense.
Why is it then that car accidents are routinely raised by pro-gun folk when discussing causes of death? I believe that, if government suddenly shifted to the type of aggressive tyranny that some people seem to fear, that reducing people's ability to travel and congregate would impact their ability to resist as much as reducing their ability to actively fight the black helicopter brigade... Careful, implementing mandatory training courses sounds like the type of "gun control" that I advocate, and the other programs you mentioned are fine examples of government-expanding socialism that so many people are wary of.
Cars are brung up by pro gun people to point out that ther are more thing s that cause death, even though they are not made to cause harm. If the government were to ban vehicles, that would crash the economy faster than a kamikaze pilot hopped up on dexetrine. It sounds weird saying this, but I do agree with you on manditory safety training. It does not violate anyones rights, it promotes safety while using AND when it is stored, it promotes responsible use and educates the people about the dangers of not locking them up, who would lose? Having the very good programs that help people is one of the main objectives for most pro gun avocates. Mentally ill and young impressional youth need all the help they can get, and with better help, they would be directed towards something far better than a murderer that they could potentialy become. My point is, we are at 50 year low without very strict gun control, why now is it a huge topic it is now? Why are they demonizing me for being a responsible gun owner?
