Topic: Guns - page 3. (Read 22196 times)

Who suggested such a thing?  I have a permit for my firearm, and I had to take classes in both the legal ramifications as well as a practical shooting test.  Are you saying that I cannot, as a father of children who own firearms & with a military background, teach my children to handle weapons responsiblely?  Do I need a piece of paper issued by some government agency that says I know how to teach my own children to act safely?  I'll be the one to teach them how to drive, the driver's test is the only part that a government agent is involved.  Does the idea that such a government training course might exist make you feel better?

http://appleseedinfo.org/


I'll do what I can.

Find me that data, and I will.

Does an automobile with its ignition on equate to a loaded and cocked gun? What are the hours for automobiles with their ignitions turned on vs. the hours in which a gun is loaded and cocked? Presumably, under both conditions, the device is being operated and providing utility.

Please redo your equations factoring in the above.

Interestingly enough, the stats I found (Sorry, couldn't find chainsaw accidents, #3 result was actually this thread) don't bear that out.

Fatal firearm accidents per 100000 people is 0.27 nationwide
88.8 firearms per 100 people in the US.
That gives us a fatal accident rate of 0.239 per 100,000 firearms.

Vehicular Fatalities per 100000 Population is 10.63. (I got lucky, and found 2007 data for both of these)
820 vehicles per 1000 people in the US.
That gives us a fatal accident rate of 8.716 per 100,000 automobiles.

There are more firearms, per person, than there are cars, and there are many times more vehicular deaths than accidental firearms deaths.

Then I must concede that, in general, cars are more dangerous than guns. I have yet to concede that removal of mandatory licensing for automobiles would lower the accident rate. I also have yet to concede that gun accidents are insignificant, ignorable, or less frequent than chainsaw accidents.

Hopefully the conceding of a point is something new in this thread and it inspires you to enlighten me further.

I doubt that, show me the data.  In the meantime, I've got this....

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States

"In 2001, 70% of Americans drove to work in cars.[4] New York City is the only locality in the country where more than half of all households do not own a car (the figure is even higher in Manhattan, over 75%; nationally, the rate is 8%)."

So, based upon that last stat, we can assume that 92% of US housholds have cars.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

"Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property"

So just over half as many households in the US own firearms as own cars, yet the chart in the top link implies that the average gun owner is about 72 times more likely to die from an auto accident than from a firearm accident.  Sure, the gun owner likely uses his car much more than his firearm; but is the rate of use relevent?  It's normal to use a car everyday, while it's not normal to fire a weapon everyday.  No matter how you slice it, though, any American is way more likely to die from an auto accident than a gun accident even if we were to double the rate of gun accidents in order to be comparable to the car ownership rate.  Did you think that guns ownership was uncommon in the US?

That's because there are more cars and more drivers for more hours in the day than guns and gun owners. Additionally, without certification and regulated safety devices, there would be even more car deaths.

Accidents involving guns, particularly involving persons who don't own any, are relatively rare.  You are much more likely to die in an auto accident, even with all of the drivers' permits & regulated safety devices, than die (or even be injured) by accident with a firearm even when you own them.

I believe that the statistics would be screwed because people drive a lot, so there's bound to be more deaths. Go ahead with the first set of statistics though.

The main problem is this:
And automotive accidents almost always happen when the car is on. Don't you think there are more automotive accidents because people drive them so much? Not due to regulation or any of that crap.

Go ahead with the first set of statistics though.

Operation hours? How would one rate firearms in that? Is a holstered firearm being "operated"? Or only when drawn and aimed? Firearm accidents happen completely outside of the normal operation of the device, unless there is a mechanical failure.

Please also provide statistics for chainsaw accidents per 100,000. And if possible, please provide each of the three statistics out of 100,000 operation hours, as well. My commute isn't short, but the amount of time I spend each day near a chainsaw is, so I assume I'm more likely to be killed in a traffic accident than by a chainsaw. However, if I commuted to a forest where I chopped down trees with a chainsaw for 8 hours straight...

In that case, those statistics need to be normalized... How many deaths from car accidents per 100,000 car owners vs. gun accidents per 100,000 gun owners.

I'm sure those numbers are out there somewhere. I'll take a look, here in a minute, if you don't beat me to the punch.

That's a perfectly fine fact. However, it doesn't make an argument. How many cars are there? How many hours per day are they used? How many people per day drive them while intoxicated? I'd be willing to bet that there are more car-hours than firearm-hours every day, and more intoxicated-car-hours than firearm-hours.

Cars ARE heavily regulated, licensed, and require mandatory training. And almost everyone uses them. If they weren't heavily regulated, licensed, etc, then I bet that there would be even more car deaths.

Cars are heavily regulated, licensed, and require mandatory training. Yet they kill more people every year than do firearms. If you restrict it to accidents, they probably kill more people every day than firearms do in a year (Just a guess, but I'd wager the numbers would back me up)

If chainsaws become a large factor in preventable American deaths, then I will support any bill which can reduce accidental chainsaw deaths. This includes certification for chopping wood, juggling, or any other chainsaw-related activity which kills a substantial number of people not operating chainsaws.

Fortunately for the residents of the USA, accidental non-operator chainsaw deaths aren't very common here.

Given that a relatively large number of people who don't own guns are injured or killed each year in gun accidents, I believe it worthwhile to attempt to reduce that number. If requiring free certification for legal gun ownership translates into every legal gun owner being educated on proper storage and handling of guns, then I support that, because I believe that the latter translates into fewer accidents and therefore fewer deaths.

The mind, it boggles.


Glad you answered this... I couldn't summon up the energy to even address that idiocy.

It's funny that you should mention this, as it's technically easier to get a Class II "Destructive Device" license from the BATF, in order to legally buy a bazooka or hand grenade, than it is to aquire a concealed carry permit in NYC.  I could do it within 6 months, if I had the money.

Sure, but in no reasonable case should there be a performance license in order for someone to buy a chainsaw in order to use it for it's intended purpose.  The same should (generally) be true for a (presumedly responsible adult) who desires to buy a firearm to be used for it's (legal) intended purpose, whether that is hunting & shooting or self-defense.

Waving a pistol around as in pistol twirling and juggling chainsaws should only be doable with a license to perform and the requisite and approved insurance and safety measures in place - i.e someone making sure the performer is juggling the chainsaw a safe distance from the audience. This is not unreasonable.

Wave your pistol around on the sidewalk, or juggle your chainsaw in a crowd, and you deserve to be arrested or detained.

That's the idea, yes.

Now, let's examine the case (to get away from that irrational fear I mentioned earlier) of a chainsaw juggler. Under ideal conditions, the chainsaw juggler harms no-one, not even himself. However, accidents happen, and well, it's a frigging chainsaw flying up in the air. What to do if it should land on someone? Clearly, this was improper handling of the chainsaw, and decidedly not it's intended usage model. The answer, in this case is clear: Hold the juggler accountable for his actions.

Now to translate that over to guns: If a man is doing something irresponsible with a firearm, there is a chance he may hurt someone. If he does, then we should hold him accountable for his actions. The end result of an accident (he hurts someone) is the same. Why should the response to that accident be any different?

Now, it should be noted that there is a clear difference between juggling a chainsaw and waving a chainsaw around menacingly, just as there is a difference between waving a gun around and, say, doing some exhibition-style pistol twirling. Waving a weapon around (any weapon) is a stupid move, and I'm not saying people should be doing that left and right. Someone who did that would (and should) get a fairly strong defensive response. But saying something is illegal opens a whole can of worms that, IMO, should not be opened for actions that do not cause harm to another person.