[1000-Oaks]

Ah, but actually it IS an almost perfect comparison!

Anti-gun folks say guns kill people. They do. There are about 31,000 gun related deaths per year, just over 10,000 of which are suicides. So that leaves about 20,000 deaths by guns. There are conservatively over 200,000,000 guns in the US, so that means there are 0.0001% or less non-suicide gun related deaths per gun.

Pro-life folks say abortions kill people. They do. In 1990 there were 1,431,584 abortions, though that figure has come down to 936,542 in 2004. (most recent data I found) It is true that a small percentage of late-term abortions don't actually kill the child and the kid ends up "premature", so we can't say 100% of attempted abortions result in the loss of a human life. But probably 99% do, and 100% attempt to do so. 100% of one million, think about that.


I'm strongly pro-choice, but I'm man enough to admit that there are nearly a million lives lost per year due to abortion - and this is perfectly legal. And acceptable to many.

Yet of 200 million guns and only 20 thousand deaths per year, some people and politicians think it's vital to outlaw many types of firearms? And most of these folks are the same ones fighting to make sure abortion stays legal?

The hypocrisy is stunning.

 

[Transcend]

There is no correlation whatsoever. The abortion affects only the woman who has the abortion with no potential to affect anyone else. A gun has the ability to affect everyone in the community. Your gun can kill me. Your wife's abortion cannot.

I'm not sure why this is complicated to grasp? It is simply a straw man argument.

Ps: A collection of cells is not a person.

 

[1000-Oaks]

I'll bet mountain bikes kill a MUCH higher percentage than the 0.0001 of guns that do, how come we're not outlawing bikes, starting with the "most lethal" DH bikes?

 

[1000-Oaks]

There is no correlation whatsoever. The abortion affects only the woman who has the abortion with no potential to affect anyone else. A gun has the ability to affect everyone in the community. Your gun can kill me. Your wife's abortion cannot.

I'm not sure why this is complicated to grasp? It is simply a straw man argument.

Ps: A collection of cells is not a person.

A gun has a 0.0001 chance of killing somebody. If someone said "I'll give you $100 if you accept a 0.0001 chance of dying," I'd take his $100.

The abortion kills a future human being 100% of the time. I wouldn't take $10,000,000 to trade places with a collection of cells scheduled for an abortion, would you?

 

[Transcend]

A gun has a 0.0001 chance of killing somebody. If someone said "I'll give you $100 if you accept a 0.0001 chance of dying," I'd take his $100.

The abortion kills a future human being 100% of the time. I wouldn't take $10,000,000 to trade places with a collection of cells scheduled for an abortion, would you?

Again, you aren't killing anyone. It's a collection of cells. You kill more cells when you take antibiotics for an infection.

 

[1000-Oaks]

Okay, show me one person who isn't a "collection of cells."


So as Captain Jack Sparrow would say:

"Ah ha! So we've established my proposal is sound in principle, now we're just haggling over price." (or number of cells)

 

[Transcend]

Okay, show me one person who isn't a "collection of cells."


So as Captain Jack Sparrow would say:

"Ah ha! So we've established my proposal is sound in principle, now we're just haggling over price." (or number of cells)

Not really. The collection of cells known as a person is self aware and able to reason, among other things.

 

[$tinkle]

Again, you aren't killing anyone. It's a collection of cells. You kill more cells when you take antibiotics for an infection.

this is madness

 

[DaveW]

or logic........

 

[jimmydean]

So you don't want a gun - don't buy one. It's your choice. How does someone else choosing to own a gun affect you? It doesn't, not one bit. So what right do you have to tell someone else how to live?

I said "some guns". It's not the choice to own that bothers me (my wife has a few) it's the guns they choose.

Boy Accidentally Killed by Submachine Gun at Firearms Expo

Not as easy to do with a pistol, shot gun, or bolt action rifle, is it?

 

[sanjuro]

Ah, but actually it IS an almost perfect comparison!

Anti-gun folks say guns kill people. They do. There are about 31,000 gun related deaths per year, just over 10,000 of which are suicides. So that leaves about 20,000 deaths by guns. There are conservatively over 200,000,000 guns in the US, so that means there are 0.0001% or less non-suicide gun related deaths per gun.

Pro-life folks say abortions kill people. They do. In 1990 there were 1,431,584 abortions, though that figure has come down to 936,542 in 2004. (most recent data I found) It is true that a small percentage of late-term abortions don't actually kill the child and the kid ends up "premature", so we can't say 100% of attempted abortions result in the loss of a human life. But probably 99% do, and 100% attempt to do so. 100% of one million, think about that.

I'm strongly pro-choice, but I'm man enough to admit that there are nearly a million lives lost per year due to abortion - and this is perfectly legal. And acceptable to many.

Yet of 200 million guns and only 20 thousand deaths per year, some people and politicians think it's vital to outlaw many types of firearms? And most of these folks are the same ones fighting to make sure abortion stays legal?

The hypocrisy is stunning.

How about this one for statistics: last year, of 14,831 murders, 10,086 were committed by guns? http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html

So if we outlaw all guns, we save the lives of 60+% all of people murdered?

 

[sanjuro]

I don't want to turn this into an abortion rant, so I will say that if you are pro-choice, then you have to respect a woman's right to choose, not insert a cut-off date.

But since thread is about gun control, I have heard complaints about the actual law. But if the complaint is if was poorly written, I wonder who prevented it from being well defined? The NRA?

It is a sad truth that banning weapons which can fire more lethal rounds at a higher rate will save more lives. It won't save everyone though, but when you hear about someone going postal or a drive-by, the less powerful the gun, the more lives saved.

 

[MikeD]

It is a sad truth that banning weapons which can fire more lethal rounds at a higher rate will save more lives. It won't save everyone though, but when you hear about someone going postal or a drive-by, the less powerful the gun, the more lives saved.

That's ludicrous. It sounds reasonable on one level, but:

Most crimes with weapons aren't committed with automatic weapons. Most people killed by shooters aren't killed by shooters firing fully automatic...it's in fact far less efficient a way to kill people than with accurate fire.

The "power" of a gun (not a real statistic, and it confuses various mechanical and ballistic issues) and "rate of fire" (a real statistic, but one that doesn't really mean anything outside of a specific application) aren't even equitable concepts.

The only really potentially valid thing about fully-automatic weapons like assault rifles causing 'more death' so to speak is that they can more easily (astonishingly, in fact) cause rounds to impact off of the intended target. For this reason, the US military took full auto off of the M16 and M4 series of rifles...belt-fed automatics with stabilizing bipods and tripods are generally the only auto weapons in the inventory for the average soldier/Marine/airman/squid/whatever.

And while I'm sure the inner-city drive-by with a MAC 10 or AK has in fact slain innocent victims with stray fire, somone (or three people) pulling the trigger rapidly on a handgun or semi-auto hunting rifle or shotgun would really be about the same thing in effect.

It's just missing the point. A child dead from an assault rifle is as dead as one from any other kind of gun.

People not committing crimes of violence is the solution to people being shot, not blaming a specific type of weapon that's not even predominant in crime.

What saves lives when someone goes postal is having someone/people willing and able to resist the aggression, whether armed or unarmed.

 

[Defenestrated]

A human being and a congregate of cells are two very different things.

But I digress, abortion is best left to other threads.

 

[MikeD]

How about this one for statistics: last year, of 14,831 murders, 10,086 were committed by guns? http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html

So if we outlaw all guns, we save the lives of 60+% all of people murdered?

You're not serious, right?

Damn, I want to kill you, but buying a gun isn't legal? Whatever will I do?

Why can't it be like the good old days before firearms, when no one could be killed or murdered because it just wasn't technologically possible?

I'm not arguing that a gun can't make killing easier, but it's fatuous to say that those killed wouldn't be dead otherwise...

 

[Samirol]

It is a sad truth that banning weapons which can fire more lethal rounds at a higher rate will save more lives. It won't save everyone though, but when you hear about someone going postal or a drive-by, the less powerful the gun, the more lives saved.

I think somewhere around 90%+ of murders with firearms are done with handguns, and maybe 100 or so are done with assault rifles.

Beyond that, handguns also have a much greater tendency to kill those around them, most stabbings don't miss and go through a wall and kill someone sleeping next door.

If handguns were able to be made illegal and there would be some way to cut the number of them, then there would be a drop. However, bans like the D.C ban will never work because of the proliferation of guns.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

...If handguns were able to be made illegal and there would be some way to cut the number of them, then there would be a drop...

And the number of stabbings, clubbings and whatnot would rise.

 

[Samirol]

And the number of stabbings, clubbings and whatnot would rise.

Most likely, but not to the level of murders that there currently are. In England, for example, there is much less gun crime, but much more knife crime, but far less overall murders.

 

[MikeD]

Most likely, but not to the level of murders that there currently are. In England, for example, there is much less gun crime, but much more knife crime, but far less overall murders.

Surely there are cases where if no gun was available, no murder would have occurred.

Surely there are also cases where if no candlestick, rope, lead pipe, or wrench was available, no murder would have occurred.

Conversely, there are also cases where although a gun was available and the chosen or opportune method of killing was with this gun, there still would have been a murder despite the unavailability of a firearm.

There's also the fact that criminals don't follow gun control laws.

 

[Samirol]

Surely there are cases where if no gun was available, no murder would have occurred.

Surely there are also cases where if no candlestick, rope, lead pipe, or wrench was available, no murder would have occurred.

Conversely, there are also cases where although a gun was available and the chosen or opportune method of killing was with this gun, there still would have been a murder despite the unavailability of a firearm.

There's also the fact that criminals don't follow gun control laws.

All your points are correct, but laws can make it harder for criminals to get guns in the first place. Gun bans in the U.S are a lost cause because there are so many guns.

In London, because there aren't a lot of handguns, there aren't a lot of shootings.

 

[$tinkle]

so the Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi were largely ineffective b/c they didn't have guns?

 

[Samirol]

so the Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi were largely ineffective b/c they didn't have guns?

Guns are a much more effective weapon for mass murder than machetes, but that doesn't mean that machetes aren't good at mass murder.

Nobody doubts that the nuclear bomb is a much more effective killing weapon than a gun, but that doesn't mean that genocide can't be carried out by guns.

 

[4xBoy]

Theodore Kaczynski didn't need a gun to be as successful at killing as some of the school shootings.

 

[$tinkle]

exceptions tend to defend the rule

 

[$tinkle]

oh, here's the list of weapons used in india:

Each man in the assault team was handed six to seven magazines of 50 bullets each, eight hand grenades, one AK-47 assault rifle, an automatic loading revolver, credit cards and a supply of dried fruit.

source

 

[4xBoy]

It is such a slippery slope arguing gun laws with the intent of saving lives when the scenario changes with every shooting, no one uses the same pistol rifle bullet size, etc etc.

How many fire arms could the government take back if they outlawed guns? probably less then 10% I would guess. What would it change?

 

[jimmydean]

I like Chris Rock's plan to increase the cost of bullets.

$5000 bullet. NSFW (language)

 

[sanjuro]

You're not serious, right?

Damn, I want to kill you, but buying a gun isn't legal? Whatever will I do?

Why can't it be like the good old days before firearms, when no one could be killed or murdered because it just wasn't technologically possible?

I'm not arguing that a gun can't make killing easier, but it's fatuous to say that those killed wouldn't be dead otherwise...

I was kidding about the interpretation of the statistics, but there are fewer murders when effective gun control is in place. I noticed the NYC murder rate decreased in 1992 when Virginia limited handgun purchases to one a month.

However, using the flawed logic that murders will continue despite more restrictive gun laws, the answer is yes, people will still be murdered but at a greatly diminished rate.

You could easily murder with a gun, but attacking someone with a handheld weapon is much more difficult.

 

[profro]

2005 death stats...

8,478- handguns
2,868- other guns
16,885- alcohol related driving

Better ban alcohol. Its the only way to be safe.

 

[$tinkle]

i wonder how many of those gun deaths were alcohol-fueled

 

[Samirol]

2005 death stats...

8,478- handguns
2,868- other guns
16,885- alcohol related driving

Better ban alcohol. Its the only way to be safe.

Driving while drunk is illegal though, unlike handguns.

Also, a gun's only purpose is to kill stuff or put small holes in things, while alcohol has a wide variety of uses.

 

[$tinkle]

plaxico burress says what?

 

[profro]

Driving while drunk is illegal though, unlike handguns.

Also, a gun's only purpose is to kill stuff or put small holes in things, while alcohol has a wide variety of uses.

Last I checked using a handguns to kill someone was illegal. Has that changed?

 

[Samirol]

Last I checked using a handguns to kill someone was illegal. Has that changed?

Texas.

 

[$tinkle]

Last I checked using a handguns to kill someone was illegal. Has that changed?

many circumstances for which the d.a. would not pursue charges.

so what are we talking about here? i'm a little lost

 

[Samirol]

many circumstances for which the d.a. would not pursue charges.

so what are we talking about here? i'm a little lost

He is saying that not enough people die from guns to try to limit the deaths I think

 

[$tinkle]

hospices have 100% death rate. and it's no accident

wake up!

 

[MikeD]

He is saying that not enough people die from guns to try to limit the deaths I think

No, he's saying violent criminal behavior like murder is already illegal. Yet it happens, because criminals by definition don't follow the law. Therefore, the illegality of the gun is a moo point. Like a cow's opinion, it doesn't matter. A criminal will use a gun despite it being against the law, yet the honest man is defenseless against him.

I do understand the converse attitude...if all guns suddenly disappeared, we simply couldn't keep up the same rate of killing that we manage to do with a more efficient tool. But as all guns won't disappear and criminals will still get them, I remain unconvinced.

 

[$tinkle]

No, he's saying violent criminal behavior like murder is already illegal. Yet it happens, because criminals by definition don't follow the law. Therefore, the illegality of the gun is a moo point. Like a cow's opinion, it doesn't matter. A criminal will use a gun despite it being against the law, yet the honest man is defenseless against him.

I do understand the converse attitude...if all guns suddenly disappeared, we simply couldn't keep up the same rate of killing that we manage to do with a more efficient tool. But as all guns won't disappear and criminals will still get them, I remain unconvinced.

we should be more progressive & just legalize murder. it may take more than a .22 short to open appropriate minds, though

 

[MikeD]

so the Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi were largely ineffective b/c they didn't have guns?

I could go ask what's left of them for you, as I'm staying in the Hotel-next-to-Rwanda...