Gun Related Deaths In America 2012

I'm looking for human related deaths, Spotty, but that case of man shooting bear seems to be justified.

 

Therein lies the point I'm trying to communicate to you and all the firearm control advocates --

Why should you penalize the farmer in Wisconsin because of the criminal actions of the person in Tennessee?

IMHO - That's like closing all the McDonald's in Australia because the manager of the McD's in Kings Cross threw hot fry oil on a customer! Story Here

You can't condemn the majority because of the stupidity of a few...

 

Shooting an animal in self defense is not the same as murdering another human being because you had an argument with them. I am not sure what your point is here.

People can have guns, but as soon as they do anything reckless, take them away. A two week waiting period and mandatory classes to teach you to be responsible for them. No guns for anyone with a mental illness or anger problems. No gun for someone using drugs, or a long time prescription drug user.

The problem is that a lot of nutcases have guns and those are the ones who cause the problems.

 

End the war on drugs and you would save countless lives both in north america and south. The ammount of gun related deaths would drop dramatically. Its a more reasonable solution to dealing with gun deaths than banning them. In america outlawing guns is the same as outlawing apple pie. Its just not going to happen.

 

Let me comment on one point you made, then I must go to bed, it's late here.

You said "No guns for anyone with a mental illness or anger problems" - I'm afraid that if you begin to stigmatize mental health problems, then you're inadvertently causing people not to seek mental treatment, for fear that they'll be put on a "watch list" somewhere.

I lose my job at the local factory, and I'm a little depressed and anxious about how I'm going to provide for my family, so I visit my local psychiatrist. Three months later I get a job, and my problems are over. A year later I go to buy a shotgun to go quail hunting, but I'm turned down at the sales register because my name appears on a list of people with mental health issues.

A couple of reports of incidents like that happening - and you know it will happen - and some people will begin to shy away from getting the help they need.

How do we stop people like Cho and Laughner from obtaining firearms, while not accidentally stopping people from obtaining mental health treatment?

 

Because people dont just use guns to kill people, they also use them for defensive measures. I wonder, if someone goes on a mass murdering spree with a bat, will you say we should have rules on ownege of those too?

Also criminals arent nutcases, they are just stupid.
And if you think it should be restricted based on anger, then you could restrict everbody in america. Crime is a choice, and choices are based on personality, so thats why one universal control law will never work, because not everybody will choose that choice.

 

You won't find a 'more bats=more crime' hypothesis is supported by the evidence. The comparison is therefore useless

 

How about a "more bats = more guano" hypothesis? That is absolutely supported by the evidence!

 

Who's your list for? Holder?

 

You could have gone for a 'more bats=more sectarian punishment beatings', but its good to go all Davie Attenborough now and then

 

My point is, no matter how many times you take something away, they will just find something new to play with, or they'll smuggle guns in.

 

There will always be crime. There will always be guns. However, as gun prevalence falls, we can expect falls in types of crime. Your point didn't describe that reality

 

There will not be a fall in crime, there will however be a rise in deaths as homeowners are unable to protect themselfs. Would you like me to explain why crime would either stay the same, or rise?

 

That isn't consistent with the evidence.

You must be in a parallel universe as the evidence in this one finds that gun prevalence leads to higher death rates

 

No it doesnt, and why dont you provide some evidence? I dont do evidence, i do philosophy and probabillity.

 

Then you're wasting my time (and everyone else's)

 

I havent seen you put down evidence, or any thing relating to it besides your statement. Did you know washington D.C. has gun laws, along with Chicago.

 

I've been reading up on Australia recently, two things seem to be happening --

First, while the number of forearm deaths has declined, the number of knife crimes is skyrocketing.

Secondly, there is a problem with the illegal importation of firearms. This appears to be by gangs, who buy firearms or firearm components overseas and smuggle them into Australia.

Solve one problem, and create two more - government at its best!

 

Can you refer to any evidence linking the two? We can of course refer to evidence that shows, for example, that buyback has had significant effects on both suicide and homicide; e.g. Leigh and Neill (2010, Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives? Evidence from Panel Data, American Law & Economics Review, Vol. 12 Issue 2, pp 462-508 )

 

Why does it matter?

 

Just the small matter of relevancy

 

Relevant to what?

I'm not stating that the two are linked in any shape, form, or fashion - merely repeating the information reported by the Australian press.

If you want to prove or disprove any relationship between the two events, be my guest.

Nevertheless, the facts - as reported by the Australian press - remain the same. Gun deaths are down, knife crimes are up.

 

Fascinating. As I said, you've got nothing of use.

 

You would be wrong - as usual.

Australian Institute of Criminology press release --

 

Find a link between knives and guns and you've got something. So far its tiresome stuff.