To gun, or not to gun?

I stand by my generalization. If you look at demographics, you find that the areas with the highest concentration of guns are nearly the same as the areas with the lowest educational attainment. Areas with the lowest concentration of guns are nearly the same as those with the highest educational attainment. That's not an opinion. If facts offend someone, oh well. Facts don't care about your feelings.

If you own a single AR-14, you are not among the most heavily-armed segment of US society. Your gun ownership status is approximately average.

I feel like I'm pointing out the obvious here, but every generalization has exceptions. They prove useful when projected across large sample sizes. You and a handful of doctors are not a large sample.

 

@NuckleMuckle Not to be rude or offensive, if you truly want to start using American history to back up your opinion on firearms, I would like to point out (as I have said before) that the United States was created with guns. Secondly I would also like to ask if you possibly meant the more well known Ar-15 though the Ar-14 is a rifle too. Lastly if indeed you did serve in the U.S. Navy, I would like to thank you for your service.

 

Because most illegal guns are obtained from people who bought them legally. If you take away legal guns, you cut off the illegal supply. This is not speculation; this is exactly what happened in every single country that ever implemented a gun ban.

New Orleans made the top-50 list for world's most dangerous cities (based on homicide rates), and the local news compiled where the weapons used came from. To the surprise of nobody except the original gun owners themselves, most of the guns were stolen from law-abiding gun owners. Straw buyers and private seller purchases were also common.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2016/02/new_orleans_stolen_guns.html

 

I didn't say you shouldn't be able to buy a firearm at the age of 18. I was trying to make a point about the laws being the same across state lines. If the age is 18, then it should be 18 everywhere.

 

Cocaine (illegal everywhere) and Marijuana are illegal to own and sell in most states in the United States yet I can find an abundance of both in South Florida. A gun ban in this country would do very little because people willing to murder another person show a complete disregard for laws and a law stating owning a firearm isn't going to stop them. It would simply be a barrier that could be easily overcome. A gun ban would simply be another failed war on drugs 2.0 and cost even more for law enforcement.

I assume you feel this way because guns serve no positive purpose in your mind. I'd like to hear your position on the legality of alcohol. Because after all, alcohol serves no beneficial purpose and is strictly used for recreational use and causes 10's of thousands of deaths a year and many more hospitalizations.

 

Are guns addictive? Does using a gun alter your physiology in such a way that you become dependent on it?

Anyway, you're only talking about the small percentage of murders which are premeditated. Most killings are spur of the moment. If there's a gun at hand, success is virtually assured. If not, the murderer has to resort to far less effective means. This automatically downgrades many murder attempts to assault.

You assume incorrectly. In my mind, they do serve a positive purpose. The problem is, the negatives outweigh them.

We've seen already that making alcohol illegal only increases violence. The opposite happens when you remove guns.

Again: are guns addictive? Is there no alternative way to gain the emotional sense of security?

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 30, 2016, Original Post Date: Mar 30, 2016 ---

And: when was the last time you read of an individual who murdered dozens of innocents by pouring beer on them?

 

When it comes to "spur of the moment" I agree with you although people generally don't have assault rifles readily accessible but handguns are a different story. You're entitled to your opinion and I see that on this issue generally people won't change their position so I respect your position. Banning alcohol can't really be compared considering the amount of cars on the road isn't the same compared to the prohibition (its a different era) and drunk driving accounts for nearly 10,000 deaths a year in the USA and within that figure are 1,000 children. Gun violence in the USA kills around 33,000 people per year and includes 460 children. You are over 20 times more likely to die in a motor vehicle accident than be a victim of gun violence in this country so I think its honestly a bit of paranoia to call for a ban of all guns. In the USA there are 260M guns yet 33,000 deaths so .01% of guns owned are used for homicide.... I wouldn't say that's all too bad.

Alcohol being addictive has no bearing on the people that go down town and get a little too drunk and decide to drive home and kill a family because they didn't get a cab. You don't have to be an alcoholic to make horrible decisions when intoxicated. An example of murdering dozens of innocent people with alcohol... can't think of any but pouring beer on people is a stupid comparison. Driving while intoxicated and hitting a loaded SUV filled with a family is more realistic. I appreciate the snarky example though.

 

The major difference between guns and automobiles is that autos are primarily designed as transportation. They are occasionally misused in ways that lead to death or injury, but by and large, they are incredibly successful at achieving their primary aim, and in so doing, they contribute great value, in terms of personal liberty and in national economy.

Guns have no purpose other than to cause grievous bodily injury, and as the numbers I shared before demonstrate, rather than accomplishing a real safety value for their owners, their presence actually increases the danger posed to those they were intended to protect.

Cars = success, guns = fail.

 

Muskets were extremely common. However, there were sharpshooters, and they did use rifles. (Front loaded rifles)

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 30, 2016, Original Post Date: Mar 30, 2016 ---

Except for hunting, which they have widely been used, traditionally, and currently.

 

Yes, and that works by inflicting grievous bodily injury on the prey.

 

That is a great oversimplification, hunting has been a necessary component of society for hundreds of years, so in this case, that injury is positive.

 

You're just playing a semantics game. Hunting is killing, war is killing, self-defense is killing (or the threat of same). Guns are designed for one purpose, and that is killing. To deny this basic fact is to be dishonest.

Much like the well-regulated militia, the US (except for certain parts of Alaska) has gone way beyond the societal need for subsistence hunting. We still practice recreational hunting in the other 49, and a side-benefit to that is animal population control, but that mission can be accomplished without guns. There's still bow hunting, trapping, etc.

 

This is a blanket comment, trying to portray guns as a one use only tool, and that use is inherently bad. Of course guns are made to hurt things, but that isn't inherently a negative. Hunting is a major part of our society, and economy, and that provides society with a benefit overall.

 

Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.

I used to refer to my position on this issue as being in favor of gun control. Which is true, except that “gun control” at its most radical still tends to refer to bans on certain weapons and closing loopholes. The recent New York Timesfront-pageeditorial, asmuch as it infuriated some, was still too tentative. “Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership,” the paper argued, making the case for “reasonable regulation,” nothing more. Even the rare ban-guns arguments involve prefacing and hedging and disclaimers. “We shouldn’t ‘take them away’ from people who currently own them, necessarily,” writes Hollis Phelps in Salon. Oh, but we should.

I say this not to win some sort of ideological purity contest, but because banning gunsurgently needs to become a rhetorical and conceptual possibility. The national conversation needs to shift from one extreme—an acceptance, ranging from complacent to enthusiastic, of an individual right to own guns—to another, which requires people who are not politicians to speak their minds. And this will only happen if the Americans who are quietly convinced that guns are terrible speak out.

Their wariness, as far as I can tell, comes from two issues: a readiness to accept the Second Amendment as a refutation, and a reluctance to impose “elite” culture on parts of the country where guns are popular. (There are other reasons as well, not least a fear of getting shot.) And there’s the extent to which it’s just so ingrained that banning guns is impossible, legislatively and pragmatically, which dramatically weakens the anti-gun position.

 

I'm pretty sure I mentioned self-defense and subsistence hunting recently, described positive benefits of recreational hunting, and elsewhere said the positives of guns are outweighed by the negatives, so I don't know where you got the idea that the only possible uses of guns are negative, but it wasn't from me.

K then, we're done with that.

 

It's actually legal in many states to own a flamethrower! (Odd fact of the day)

 

Lets ban cars too because they kill more than 33,000 people

 

I love guns. So fun, great way to relieve stress. In the us alone, handguns kill 10,000 people a year. I. Canada, 5 die from handguns a year(well this year more like 500 because of more gang violence in Toronto)

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 1, 2016, Original Post Date: Apr 1, 2016 ---

Point is it's the us 's issue. But on this line of cars killing, more die from hippos and, yes ninjas, than handguns in the us.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 1, 2016 ---

Hey want to know something? Bows are just as dangerous. In my neighborhood, someone murdered 3 people with bow and arrow just 6 months ago.

 

Car accidents = Granny Smith pulled out of her driveway and forgot to put her glasses on, accidentally hits a car.

Gun Shootings = I just had way too much booze and happen to own 5 high-powered assault rifles which I shall now proceed to use to most maliciously flup up a school full of innocent kids.

 

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 1, 2016, Original Post Date: Apr 1, 2016 ---

Cough cough granny was on the wrong side of the highway and caused a 40 car pile up with 30 dead cough cough