Though that's based on the fact that injuries from cars are distributed fairly equally among cars, which is not the pattern for guns.

As far as I can think of that's the only way the numbers work out in guns' favor, but I think there's probably something useful to be learned from that.

State Gun Deaths Motor Vehicle Deaths
Alaska 104 84
Arizona 856 809
Colorado 583 565
Indiana 735 715
Michigan 1,095 977
Nevada 406 255
Oregon 417 394
Utah 260 256
Virginia 836 827
Washington 623 580

total of 10?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/25/490441/report-in-10-states-guns-kill-more-people-than-cars-do/

The gun deaths are not remotely evenly distributed among all guns.

they're both things that kill people, even though they aren't made to do that.

which is why society regulates them

the more dangerous thing should be regulated even more than the less dangerous thing.

right?

the point is that-
the amount of people dying per day by gun or by car is very close.

in 2010 30,000 were killed by cars and 31,000 by guns

out of those 31,000 by guns, around 600 were justifiable homicide, by the way. look it up

almost the same amount dying per day, stay with me

people are out in their cars (where the danger is, on the road) all day, every day, drunk driving, etc. yet only 30,000 killed

the only people who use guns all day, every day are cops, guards, etc. not really many peeps hunting game for a living, see?

so if guns are not out in public on a near constant basis, how do they kill the same amount?

sure, people have concealed carry permits, lots of em, but those are for self defense ONLY. 600 cases a year? its CONCEALED carry because most normal people don't want to see a guy walking around with a gun while they are at the library or a tea shop. you are only supposed to use it if your life is threatened. get it?

so all the other people are being killed by guns that are either illegal or supposed to be locked up for safety.

so we need more and better laws. get it?

If guns were used at the same rate as cars were driven, does anybody doubt that there would be total mayhem (worse than we already have - much worse).

There's just no comparison. On a given day in the U.S., most guns are sitting unused in their owner's safes or car trunks or sock drawers. Most cars are on the road, being driven.

its those sock drawer guns that are the problem.

i mean really, when's the last time you saw a gun in public. ok, if you're in arizona, 5 minutes ago.

i can't even think of seeing a gun on anyone but a cop or sec. guard IN MY ENTIRE LIFE

and rifles for self defense? if you're so paranoid you think you need that, maybe just stay at home, please?

do you ever see F-1 racers on public roads?

if you are ever arguing with someone who says rifles are for self defense,oh, i need one in my house, just make up some crap about how "military training" says you should use your "short arms" in "interior scenarios" for "maximum stopping power".

you only have two hands. two .45s or whatever work for milla jovovich in resident evil, for pete's sake!

Cars serve a purpose and are used every day. People die from slipping and falling in the shower. People die in the kitchen from using knives, can openers and the stove. People die from falling off of ladders.

Now, why do rational people not call for banning cars, showers, knives, stoves and ladders? Because they serve a purpose.

The only civilian guns that serve a purpose are those used for hunting, and they don't have high rates of fire and legally can't have more than a handful of shots. OR those used for self-defense and why do they need more than about 6-10 shots? I do not understand why people NEED an AR-15, and similar weapons. I don't understand why people on the street need massive clips in a handgun.

The military and our police officers enter into literal warzones. It's unfortunate that our police officers who are supposed to be peace officers have to confront such a reality. Why do the rest of us have to have our cities and our country be a literal warzone to satisfy the people that just think they NEED an AR-15 and a massive clip in their handgun and a weapon that sprays bullets to be content?

Also cars are not designed to kill, as guns are. But if I we all had to give up our cars to save one life, I would do it today without whining like a baby or posting stupid shit about it. Guns kill people, as they are designed to do. They do. Get over it.

cars are NOT designed to kill people.

therefore, guns are more dangerous than cars

thank you for agreeing with me

any maniac could drive a car into a busload or playground full of children and probably cause more damage than and do it faster than a gun

elderly people drive into farmers markets and kill people all the time- so laws are passed to make them take eye tests more often

why could this be? perhaps because cars are regulated sensibly

get it- people don't drive cars into classrooms because of things called WALLS

guns could be kept out by things called LOCKS. it pretty straightforward

People are murdered with hammers sometimes. People have been killed by axes. Occasionally a knife-wielding maniac stabs and kills people. All three of those things are deadly weapons, but they have one thing in common - they are mostly used for other purposes.

Hunting rifles can kill people and do accidentally, but you don't see maniacs running around killing 20 and 30 people at a time with them because they aren't designed to spew bullets.

obviously!

Ladders are built to climb yet people fall off of them and die. Buildings and bridges are built to occupy and drive over yet people jump from them to die. There is also a big difference between being killed in an accident and being intentionally murdered with a tool that was manufactured to kill. We will all die in some fashion. We do not have to necessarily die because someone else decides they want to murder us. That is called robbing an individual of the freedom to live.

therefore, guns are more dangerous

i believe if a ladder is used commercially it has to be registered or safety checked, etc. insurance,you know.

there are suicide prevention measures on bridges and buildings. trigger locks, you know.

also, what do you mean by accident? if you mean a bad thing that happens out of carelessness or neglect, any death from a bullet counts. it doesn't matter if it was intentional or not, somebody f'd up somewhere.

can you name any way it is ok for a person to kill another legally besides in a war, a cop preventing crime, death penalty, or self defense? and self defense happens the least of all of those

Cars are not manufactured for the specific reason of killing. Guns are. Anything can kill you. Something that is manufactured to kill needs to be treated differently. The argument that if "good people" can't obtain guns that "bad people" can steal guns is a canard. Bad people can steal nuclear weapons and bad people can hijack planes to crash into buildings. That doesn't mean that nuclear weapons should be issued to everyone because bad people steal one. Or that all people should fly unregulated planes without a license. People target practice but the history of weapons, particularly guns, is to use as a tool to kill.

I think something needs to be done. The NRA and Larry Pratt of the Gun Owners of America can go to hell.

also confused

if guns should be regulated like cars, you have to look at the parallels.

door lock/trigger lock

liability insurance

drunk drivers/spouse shooters

tinted windows/sniper scopes

that kind of thing

"how many rampage murders are committed with cars?"

I wonder what the Grover Norquist Party thinks about that.

The places where you can use your guns, are the same types of places that you can operate vehicles that do not have to meet these standards.

Depending on the state and type of forest, you can operate a jeep that has no inspection, registration, or insurance.

You can build any type of vehicle that you want, and it does not have to meet any kind of regulation. The rules come into place when you are going to operate that vehicle on PUBLIC property, if you have the land you can drive whatever you like. Or, if you are going to build a vehicle for a specific purpose (drag racing) you can haul that vehicle to the place where it will be operated.

Guns/Cars is a foolish comparison.

the operator of whatever vehicle brought it to your private location has to be regulated, licensed, checked for eyesight, insurance, etc. I collect old cars and have had to put my share of unlicensed, unregistered, uninspected vehicles on trailers while hauling them to my private property. The trailered unregistered car requires a hauling permit from the DMV and insurance for the haul. A hauled vehicle very much is regulated on public streets. And the trailer carrying the car requires working brake lights and turn signals. The trailer itself on which the unlicensed vehicle rests must meet weight requirements for the weight of the hauled vehicle and the hitch must meet size requirements depending on the weight being hauled. That homemade vehicle is very much regulated to and from the private property. If that gun, loaded or not, is being transported out of the home, it should be regulated every bit as much as the driver of your dragster is regulated and licensed as well as the transport itself.

There are two factors at work regarding cars and guns: the device itself and the operator. Cars are regulated for safety, for their emissions, for their speed, etc. So are the operators. If you’re driving that dragster to a race, even if it’s on your hauler, you’re still regulated as the operator who drove it there. Guns should be regulated for inherent danger of the device, the way cars are regulated, such as laws outlawing armor piercing rounds that penetrate a policeman’s flak jacket, clips with extraordinary numbers of rounds, fully automatic, etc. In addition, the operator of the car and the gun should be regulated. In the case of a gun, a criminal record involving previous gun use should factor in, as well as clinical mental problems, history of drug abuse, etc. If that gun is carried in public, even if the ammo is separated from it, the gun operator has the potential to use it. Even though that dragster has no gas in it and is being hauled, the guy driving it to its destination must be licensed and insured and subject to having his behavior regulated.

Personally, I think the comparison between guns and cars is pretty accurate.

I get the gun regulation thing, and I agree with sensible gun regs.

But again, comparing it to cars is just not accurate.

A trailered unregistered car requires a permit from the DMV? Where? If you are hauling a 25,000 pound car, maybe ... depending on your DL class and tow vehicle. Cars are hauled all over the place everyday with no permits, no tags/inspection/insurance.

The trailer being used has to be licensed no matter if it has bricks on it, or a car, tractor, lawnmower, or balloons.

You can own a car and not drive it ever ... hell I have been "working" on a 67 Catalina for a decade, it will most likely still be in some state of disassembly when I die. It is something to do more than anything else.

And again, if you have the land you can operate any vehicle on it, with no restrictions at all.

Guns are made to kill things. Cars are not. Guns should be registered, always ... a car can turn to a pile of rust in an old barn and never be registered, even upon sale to another person as long as they do not attempt to drive it on a public road.

California DMV Moving Permit required for moving any unlicensed, unregistered vehicle and must be applied for in person at the DMV.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/reg_hdbk/ch25/ch25_2.htm

Every time I’ve applied for one at the dmv, they’ve required proof of a one-day insurance policy from my insurance company for that haul, whether round trip or one-way.

The above required permit is for private individuals. Commercial tow truck drivers are licensed and insured for this and do not require a moving permit per vehicle on a flat bed but have blanket authorization through their licensure. But they will not accept the haul of an unregistered, unlicensed vehicle without a moving permit on a two-wheel towing dolly where two of the car’s wheels are on the ground even if it’s firmly attached. I’ve been through this several times with various old cars.

The DMV also regulates what kind of trailer you have to use, what kind of hitch, and what weight of vehicle you must have, depending on the vehicle you are towing. A compact car may be able to haul a VW bug but it can’t tow a Hummer.
California has various regulations concerning towing a trailer including type of hitch (ball and coupler hitch or sturdier load distributing hitch), gross weight of trailer, and GVWR (gross vehicle weight restriction) of the vehicle used to pull the trailer. You can’t tow a Hummer with an improperly rated hitch or a compact car. Of course that trailer requires brake lights and turn signal lights whether bricks or a car is being hauled. But the point is that that car’s transport is regulated. The fact that the transport of bricks is regulated as well makes no difference. If the car can be teleported to the private estate it might be different, but the fact is that the unregistered car’s transport is regulated.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/dl648/dl648pt12.htm

I question how many vehicles within the definition of “cars” are used solely on private property and whether those can even be considered conventional “cars” and not race cars, golf carts, snowmobiles, three wheelers and the like. I do agree with you that guns should always be regulated (at first I thought I was responding to gun libertarian but I see that you are not). The intent of the design (whether for transportation or killing something or someone) to me makes no difference in the guns vs. cars debate. What matters to me is the potential impact on society either by their hazardous design (whether car with unsafe design or inherently unsafe full auto assault rifle) or the negligent operation of a gun or car. Both to me are highly dangerous. Both need to be regulated.

In the great majority of places in the US, your interlocutor is correct.

The car comparison is just foolish.

As you say there have been cars that have been deemed unsafe to operate, you can still own them, and you can still drive them. The car company just can not still make them. So, is that the rule you want for firearms? Government says fully automatic weapons can no longer be made, but if you can get one ... you can have it.

Uhhh no.

Collections would be the same way. People collect cars, and have a tendency to collect rare cars, or cars that had some unique feature. I do not think we should let people collect mass amounts of weapons, and to seek out and acquire unique weapons.

As far as vehicles being driven on private property, maybe not so much out there in Cali. I live in Texas, and there are ranches out here that have their own fleet of vehicles that never leave the property. Hell, Ford names their top of the line truck after one of them, "King Ranch". I have a "little" place out in Cut and Shoot, takes up about 20 acres and backs up to a creek, on a dirt road about 10 miles from anything. I have an old beater K-5 Blazer with one seat in it, no windows, and the top cut off (it gets hot and the AC busted years ago) that I use to drag branches and other garbage around with. The number of vehicles that are on hunting properties or leases here in Texas would boggle your mind, there are literally thousands of them. Some numbnuts build deer stands on top of them, complete with seats on the front bumper and built in beer coolers.

http://2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/showthread.php?t=256310

I am not saying there are no similarities between cars and guns, there are some. I want guns controlled more than cars, not the same. I have no problem with the fact that old K-5 has no registration ... pretty sure the government doesn't even know it exists, and although I am a gun owner I think all my weapons should have to be registered and any transfer of them should have to go through a dealer and a fee be paid.

Both cars and guns are inherently hazardous by design. The safe operation of either depends on the safe performance of the operator. Both sets of devices and operators should be regulated. Old cars still on the road have at one time complied with the will of the people in being safe and meeting legislated standards. You are incorrect when you state that they have been deemed unsafe. Cars that are homemade or made in foreign countries that are not safe for their drivers or others on the road and that have never met U.S. safety standards cannot be imported, or if they are imported they must be inspected and made to comply. There are a lot of small, highly gas efficient vehicles made in the Far East such as the popular teeny tiny mini vans in China made by Daihatsu that can't be driven on America's roads because they are deemed unsafe by our legislators. It would probably cost a fortune to convert those little cars to import them and drive them but it could be done. My cousin has a gun collection that includes fully automatic weapons of a certain vintage. I'm not a gun owner and I was only half paying attention when he described how he acquired them legally, but apparently there are special permits involved and guns made before a certain date can still be owned. I think it also depends on the State.

Of course guns and cars are different devices and have different uses. I think we can agree on that. But both should be regulated as they are dangerous as well as their operators. Of course the regulations should be nuanced to fit the different nature of these hazardous devices. Your old truck apparently isn't being driven where there are people but if you do drive it on a street the law should intervene. That itself (limiting where you can use it) is itself a regulation.

Either way, civil and reasoned debate is always a great tool for learning.

Apprciate the back and forth.

The places where you can use your cars, are the same types of places that you can operate guns that do not have to meet these standards.

Depending on the state and type of forest, you can operate a gun that has no inspection, registration, or insurance.

You can build any type of gun that you want, and it does not have to meet any kind of regulation. The rules come into place when you are going to operate that gun on PUBLIC property, if you have the land you can shoot whatever you like. Or, if you are going to build a gun for a specific purpose (to shoot somebody you don't like) you can haul that gun to the place where it will be operated.

Guns/Cars is a foolish comparison.

I am not even beginning to say that guns do not need to be regulated.

Switching some words in thier order? OK ...

You cat is foolish, your car ran over a button, and somehow you turned into a gun.

The fact is, you can own any type of car you want to own, period. Is that what you want, people to be able to own any kind of gun that they want to?

You are calling for the removal of any kind of gun regulation at all ... just like cars.

Foolish.

just like cars, which are also regulated in every way shape and form.

The fact is, you can own any type of car you want to own, period.

really? you can own an F-1 racer or dumptruck or model T? and a tank? or a tanker truck? a jet pack with wheels?
you need a different license and insurance to drive any of those off of your property.

where did i say anything about removing gun laws?

changing the words was to show you that your post made equal amounts of sense either way

the fact is you can own any car you want comma but to use it anywhere but your own property you need a license at the very least

then the period

the reason you can buy any car you want- people don't go out and buy a ferrari to kill their spouse

guns are much cheaper and easier.

you can't say cars are not regulated. you can say buying cars is not regulated, fine

but if you want to use it, there are many regulations

also, you need a DRIVER'S LICENSE to buy a car from a dealer, so there's that.

i believe there are some regs involved there

also- yes a tank is not a car. that is because there is a reg. that DEFINES car

you need a CDL to buy a dumptruck from a dealer. same for a tanker. you need a legitimate commercial purpose to buy something like that. obviously you've never bought one, so how do you know what's involved?

How do you know what I buy?

I do the purchasing and maintenance for the company vehicles, along with alot of the other capital expense items. Last year we bought a small cab over to move containers back and forth from the port. I negotiated with the dealer, the company cut a check, I delivered the check, the dealer delivered the vehicle to our shop. The year before that we purchased an F-450. They do not give a damn what we are going to do with that trucks, they never even asked.

As far as the drivers license, you need one to buy a gun too. Same same.

But, your still talking new. I can buy any thing I want used, and as long as I have cash no one is going to ask me squat. I do not think you should be able to acquire a gun that way, right now you can.

but if you want to use it, there are many regulations

And, as far as the comparison to use. I am pretty sure there are "regulations" against shooting people. Pretty sure there are "regulations" saying you can not carry a weapon into school. Once you have made the decision to kill someone, you have decided to break the law. I want it to be harder to get that weapon, unlike a car.

Just like there are "regulations" against driving a car without licenses, registrations, and insurance. If you are willing to pay the penalty for doing those things, you can do them. People drive with bad tags and no insurance every day, those "regulations" that you think guns should be held to same standard as are broken hundreds of thousands of times a year.

You said it, "guns are cheaper and easier", and they should not be. Guns should be considerably more difficult to acquire than a car. Registration, ownership, and transfers need to be controlled a hell of a lot more than cars. And the penalties for breaking those "regulations" should not be able to be an hour class on "defensive driving" or a $250 fine.

Cars/Guns ... horrible comparison.

you kind of have to compare them to cars

they are both "consumer products"

cars had no seatbealts at one point. now they do

are you in public?
those trucks? anyone can have a small pickup. if the truck is over a certain weight, you need a special license to drive it. and classes,etc.
if the truck is full of something HAZARDOUS, you need an even more special license, and take more classes.

do you see any tanks driving around in public? or F-1 race cars?

it is actually a perfectly legitimate comparision for an open minded person

They are transported.

Per hours of being used, which is more dangerous -- a car or a gun? A car that sits locked up in a garage isn't dangerous, just as a gun that's locked up in a safe isn't dangerous. But take them out and use them -- which one is more likely to cause harm?

We compare fatality rates between airplanes and cars by mile traveled. We should compare fatality rates between cars and guns the same way.

guns and cars travel together a lot?

i don't quite get what you mean, like by hours in use?

there are around 250,000,000 cars, maybe 80% used every single day, just a guess

there are around 300,000,000 guns. they are "in use" much less, but cause more deaths than cars in 10 states

The fact that gun deaths and car deaths are now approaching the same numbers per year?

A reminder that a gun's intended purpose is ... to kill someone.

Roll your own query at WISQARS.

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html

I think any comparison between those figures is pointless. Firearms and vehicles have completely different purposes. The fact that vehicle deaths are falling - Because of improved safety engineering and trauma care - is very good news.

when i don't get it.

guns deaths are steady because laws don't change and/or new ones are flawed

cars deaths are down because of regulation- seat beat laws are one out of hundreds

but there are millions of cars on the road everyday, and guns kill nearly as many or more people

there aren't nearly as many people using guns at any given moment of time

if the death rate of one consumer product is staying the same and another is falling, isn't the first more dangerous?

you used to be able to get heroin in a drugstore- people realized maybe aspirin is a better idea?

Cars are supposed to be safe.

guns deaths are steady because laws don't change and/or new ones are flawed

First of all, most firearm-caused deaths are suicides. Suicide rates have nothing to do with laws. Suicides result from mental health problems, or from rational decisions based on a person's situation - Usually having something to do with a physical health problem.

Besides suicides, most of the remainder of homicides are crimes, acts that are already illegal. Changing laws to make things that are already illegal MORE illegal won't make crime rates change.

still not sure what you mean.

laws about weapons being kept in homes with mentally ill people could potentially have stopped lanza?

making guns harder to get without background checks would reduce the number of criminals using them?

but those aren't really the subject

I keep all of my firearms securely locked in a sturdy safe, even though there is no law (state, federal, or local) that requires me to do so.

I also keep dangerous drugs such as Vicodin and cyclobenzaprine locked in that safe. The only time any of the above are out is when I am using one, and at those times I keep them under my direct personal control. Otherwise, the safe is locked at all times.

For four months last year, I allowed a person who I knew to have some mental health issues live in my house. At first I didn't realize how bad her problems were, but over the months she dropped many hints that she was considering suicide. For example, I take Fosamax to increase my bone mass. A monthly allotment is four pills. She asked me if it was possible to overdose on that drug.

She lived in a house with more than 50 firearms, ammunition for them, and enough drugs to kill a horse. She rifled through my non-secure medicine cabinet, went through all of my belongings, presumably looking for drugs or weapons, and found none. The fact that I had all those weapons and ammunition in my house didn't matter at all.

Later she managed to kill herself anyway, but not on my watch and not with my drugs or my gun.

Unfortunately I believe that you are in the minority when it comes to guns or drugs. How many people own a gun safe.. consider the fact that people buy guns to have them available if someone breaks in during the night. If it`s not handy, what good is it... Again, most people keep their drugs in the medicine cabinet, which is why their kids are tripping out on prescription meds.

because people do it and hurt people.

people blow off gun safety, people get hurt.

the law's purpose is to make the less responsible people both think about what they're doing a little more AND punish the screwups

All it does is provide a penalty for people who violate it.

I think prevention is more important than punishment.

because they are afraid of getting a DUI, even though they may or may not be impaired.

seatbelts save lives when people roll their cars.

more people wear seatbelts because you can get fined or pulled over when you've had 3 beers and get a DUI when you aren't drunk.

laws can actually work together to prevent things.

also, just because you are a responsible gun owner, you have no idea about the other 99,999,999.

wouldn't you want a law that would prevent someone from using your gun(s) if stolen?
like a wristwatch, chip in the gun combo.
you could take any gun you have and swap it for a new one, same model, but it has a chip in the gun and you wear a watch to shoot it instantly with no delay. not possible for an antique gun, sure, but the newer and bigger guns are more dangerous.

there is a law that says your toaster has to shut off automatically, to save you money on fire insurance

Ah but we do know, it is called the news and so far I've never heard a report of 99,999,999 (the other gun owners) running riot in the streets and causing anarchy at large. So yes, you can know. Most people are responsible gun owners.

who the hell said anything about anarchy?

great. most people are responsible, sure. my point is that smart guns are a great way to stop the ones who aren't from killing,

and you can't say "i'm not going to kill anyone, and neither is anybody else with a gun. they are all just like me"

and your point is...most people are responsible...and?

For the comparison to be accurate, you have to compare usage-time vs deaths-caused.

If you take the whole country, car usage is about one hundred billion hours per year. I found stats that show the USA drives about 3 trillion miles a year, and used 30 MPH as the avg speed.

Including target practice, purchasing, illegal usage, and stroking/humping, gun usage is probably in the tens of millions of hours. Probably a majority of the guns out there are largely unused, vs a very vocal, very small minority of Delicate Flowers who need the constant presence of their Precious to face life.

Putting these numbers together results in a gun kill-rate anywhere from 1000 to 30,000 times that of cars.

However, that's because cars are becoming safer, not because gun deaths are climbing (they're not). Moreover, as another poster pointed out, because car deaths are most always accidental, the risk is evenly distributed. The same is not true of firearms, where the risk of death is concentrated in a very small portion of the total (almost entirely among those in the hands of habitual criminals).

It's a stupid comparison, regardless of which side of the gun control debate brings it up. in any case.

so where is the stupid?

That's also got the same categorical difference that I previously mentioned: it's not accidental. Accidental gun deaths are the only ones that can really be validly compared to car-related deaths...and they've become thankfully rare.

Slightly off-topic about suicide: I happen to believe that suicide should be the basic right of any adult. Not always a popular opinion...just ask John Ashcroft.

They are designed to be dangerous. They are designed, with few exceptions, to kill. The question to ask is who are they designed to kill?

like enemies in war or violent criminals?

or the homeless if you are lance henrikson in jean claude van damme's hard target?

definitely not kids or other gangs or shoppers or cops or your (not YOU, of course) cheating wife or movie goers

or politicians or McDonald's customers or or or or or

my point being, most people killed by guns are NOT the ones guns were 'designed' to kill

in fact, guns and other weapons were first used for hunting food, and shooting a human with one unless they are trying to kill you is kind of perverse, really.

Some things to think about though. Most of the people killed by guns are probably bad guys killing other bad guys. Just because they are both bad guys, that doesn't mean one is not the attacker and the other the defender. When bad guys cross the path of good guys, sometimes the bad guy get killed, sometimes the good guy gets killed.

But I think the main thing to remember is that we just don't know who will get killed with the gun. We won't know who, we won't know why, we won't know when. So while some firearm regulation is quite good, there is a point of diminishing returns. Those diminishing returns will come in the cost of the regulations, the political capital expended to enact laws that don't work, and the loss of civil liberties of the people whose lives those laws will impact.

And that is where the debate lies.

Who are the suicides? Who are the homicides? Who are the justifiable homicides?

Any law reduces civil liberty. It's the price we pay for a civilized society. How would you craft a law denying a gun to the wrong people, and allowing the right people to have one?

If you put a thousand people in a room and told them that three of them would be assaulted, raped, mugged or murdered next week, five hundred of them would go out and buy a gun tomorrow. Will they need those guns? No. But they'll buy them anyway because we don't know who will need them.

Statistics are fine for telling us what has already happened, but they are almost worthless for an individual trying to decide what's safe and what's not. Especially when the stakes are life and death.

Enforcing laws costs money. Police officers don't work for free. Courts aren't run by charities. And political capital is what a politician spends to get a law enacted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_capital
A politician gains political capital by winning elections, pursuing policies that have public support, achieving success with initiatives, and performing favors for other politicians.

Political capital must be spent to be useful, and will generally expire by the end of a politician's term in office. In addition, it can be wasted, typically by failed attempts to promote unpopular policies that are not central to a politician's agenda. American President George W. Bush claimed to have earned "political capital" after the 2004 elections.[1]

Political capital is highest in the "honeymoon period" of a presidency as in the United States, where the president is newly elected and the people still support the person they voted for. Along with the president's popularity are those who ride on the "coattails", congressional representatives of the president's party that are elected alongside the president. This support in congress enables the president to better use his honeymoon period and political capital to pass his ideal legislation.

suicide means you want to die, homicide means you kill somebody else. justifiable means you had legal authority to kill a person.

who are they?

people who died from gunshot wounds.

so the law called the 2nd amendment reduces liberty?

the thousand people thing- life is not a batman movie

statistics are no good? whaddya do, guess? ouija board?

you tax guns to pay for the PRIVILEDGE of owning them, just like cars

also, the majority of people, i believe want better gun laws. obama SHOULD piss off the NRA and all the other gun crazies. they have nothing on their side but propaganda, lies, and money from a-holes.

have you forgotten so soon how he/they tore karl rove a new one last election? by standing up to their BS?

the tea party already is falling apart...jump ship!

What is most obvious about graph 2 is that the Republicans influence far and away the most gun purchasers. Ask yourself why that is.
Could it be that there are vested interests in the Republican party that want people to spend money on guns.....

How many of those Republican "leaners" would vote the other way but for the gun issue? Guns symbolize self defense - a very personal and important thing. People take the security of themselves and those near to them very seriously.

Forty percent of Democrats - and "leaners" - have a gun in the home. How many of those "leaners" would defect if you get your gun proposals wrong? Again, it's an important issue for people. It's hard enough to get die hard Democrats to agree (note how it works on DU) much less the fence sitters. That doesn't exactly spell "political will" to me.

Like I say, if you have a proposal go for it. But as far as I am concerned gun laws are about as good as we can make them. Anything more is beyond the point of diminishing returns.

i don't even understand what you are saying, so the pictures don't help

Forty percent of Democratic homes have guns. Every change in firearms regulation relating to the function of firearms just won't work. So not only will centrist gun owners look at any Democratic legislator proposing those changes roll their eyes and vote Republican, it sows disarray and confusion in the ranks of Democrats.

We can't just do something. We have to do the right thing, or it will be worse than nothing.

how do you know what laws will work in the future?

a trigger lock doesn't work? why do responsible people buy them?

how does a politician propose changes that won't work? don't you have to try them to see if they work?

every single centrist person has the exact same ideas as you?

what?

it isn't a contest between political parties.

look at it like this-
having a democracy means that people with different views and ideas work together to solve problems the country faces

You want trigger locks? Fine. Every law has to be enforced. To enforce a trigger lock law the infrastructure to verify compliance has to be in place. Three hundred million guns and eighty million gun owners, how many people do we need to enforce compliance? Or do you prefer heavy penalties if a gun is used wrong that didn't have a trigger lock? Okay, prove the person in charge of the lock was negligent. Locks can be picked. Firearms can be loaned. There will be no way to meaningfully assign culpability, and every gun owner and district attorney knows it. And the political fallout will be another "liberal nanny state law" that does nothing. The Democrats that supported it will get voted out in favor of Republicans.

I own trigger locks and I use them. But I also know that nobody can make me use them. And anybody that stops and thinks about how a law mandating them will actually work will know it too.

happen because you say they will?

clinton was president in 1994 when they did the assault weapons ban, i pretty sure he got elected again?

The Democrats that supported it will get voted out in favor of Republicans.

can you provide a chart?



You want trigger locks? Fine. Every law has to be enforced. To enforce a trigger lock law the infrastructure to verify compliance has to be in place. Three hundred million guns and eighty million gun owners, how many people do we need to enforce compliance? Or do you prefer heavy penalties if a gun is used wrong that didn't have a trigger lock? Okay, prove the person in charge of the lock was negligent. Locks can be picked. Firearms can be loaned. There will be no way to meaningfully assign culpability, and every gun owner and district attorney knows it.

You want a steering wheel? Fine. Every law has to be enforced. To enforce a steering wheel law the infrastructure to verify compliance has to be in place. Three hundred million cars and eighty million drivers, how many people do we need to enforce compliance? (you can count them if you want. they are called police) Or do you prefer heavy penalties if a car is used wrong that didn't have a steering wheel? Okay, prove the person in charge of the car was negligent. Roads can turn. Wheels can be loaned. There will be no way to meaningfully assign culpability, and every driver and district attorney knows it.

Here's how I see it. If you want to regulate the lethality of a gun, there are three ways to do it. Every gun is just an ordinance delivery device. The bullets go in the bottom and out the front. The three characteristics are these:

Caliber.
That's the size of the bullet. Civillian gun calibers run from .17 inches in diameter to .50 inches. There is no such thing as a benign bullet. A .22 can kill you just as dead as a .50 BMG. If you get shot, if the wound doesn't kill you, it will almost certainly wreck your life.

Bullet calibers can be measured, thus regulated, very accurately. Not only can they be measured, but the physics of ballistics and the physical design of the guns that shoot them are not hard to surround with a bright legal line.

Rate of fire.

That's how fast a gun can shoot. Again, it's pretty easy to draw a bright legal line around rate of fire. It comes in two flavors: automatic or burst fire and semi automatic. Automatic means that a gun will shoot as long as you hold the trigger down. Burst fire is about the same in that it will shoot three times or so if you hold the trigger down. Semi automatic means that a gun will shoot once each time the trigger is pulled.

Now, wiggle your right index finger as fast as you can. That's the rate of fire for a semi automatic gun. There's really not much difference between semi auto and full auto in real world shooting. It's a legal distinction without a difference because that's where we are actually able to write a statute to regulate it.

Capacity.

That's how many bullets a gun will hold. It's quite possible to regulate the manufacture and sale of high capacity magazines, as soon as we can agree on what "high capacity" means. For some people "high capacity" means one bullet, for others it means a shit load. We will never know exactly what it means because required capacity will depend on how many bullets you need and why you need them. And even that point is moot, because magazine fed firearms are designed that way to make them easy to reload. If you think the capacity of the gun is too small, bring more mags. Here's another video.

There are several variants of the consumer version of the Model 700, including; Model 700, Model 700 ADL, Model 700 BDL, Model 700 CDL, and Model 700 Safari.

Remington markets the 700 to military forces and civilian law-enforcement agencies under the Remington Law Enforcement and Remington Military banner, with the military/law enforcement 700s being called the Model 700P ("Police&quot .

If you want me to produce some sort of gun control proposal you're out of luck. I don't have any. If you have one I'm willing to listen.

....very few deaths caused by motor vehicles are deliberate killings.

You do understand the distinction, don't you?

Enjoy your stay.

ok-
very few deaths caused by firearms are purely accidental-

therefore most of them are intentional

very few deaths caused by motor vehicles are deliberate killings.

therefore, most of them are accidents.

they both cause around the same amount of deaths

In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms-- by cars 2010 = 32,885- look it up yourself, stop being lazy,farting around for numbers for lazy people is a pain in the ass

so what is the distinction?

equal amounts of death, one is accidents, one is deliberate.

you are saying mistakes are more dangerous than homicide? danger means: exposure or liability to injury, pain, harm, or loss

and, by the way, have fun telling the judge if you get busted for DUI that it was an "accident"

so, in conclusion, i've been called a troll by someone who makes no sense.

HUZZAH!

please stop wasting my time

...so move along, troll, there's nothing left for you to say.

grow up, and stop wasting my time.

you tried to dispute my point, i showed you you were wrong, and you started calling me names.

if you think i'm wrong, please explain. or go away.

the point is guns+danger=more than cars? get it?

Definition of TROLL
: a dwarf or giant in Scandinavian folklore inhabiting caves or hills

i am this?

you are this-
a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages

but substitute nonsense for inflammatory.

now go away or i'll call my hobbit buddies

if people blogging on this site would treat each other with a little respect...

"handsome person"?

I don't think so. Lots of things harm or kill people, but aren't registered.

It makes no sense to me to try to compare cars to guns.

Are we going to have to register gas stoves or butane tanks or rope or knives or axes or construction tools, all of which harm or kill people every year?

The purpose of ownership is to know who owns a thing, of course, but also for the government to make money. Or maybe even mainly to make money.

are that they are actually regulated for safety. Underwriting labs, standard associations etc. As their purpose is non-lethal, should they malfunction and kill someone there is a lawsuit against the manufacturer. The gun only has one purpose - killing. Any standard assocation for guns would disqualify a gun that failed to kill or blew up in the hands of the owner, but not one that fulfilled its destiny.

So they don't misfire, backfire, etc.

Guns are not just to kill. They are also used to stop someone from killing you, just by showing that you've got protection. They are also used in target range contests, for shooting ability, and in skeet shooting (much like bows & arrows).

Most people who have guns have never killed a person. A lot have killed animals (which I abhore), and a lot have killed nothing (me).

I have a gun for protection. It has in fact protected me and kept me safe from harm. I am a target of criminals. They don't need a gun to kill me. I am at a disadvantage against any criminal. I live alone. I don't intend to ever live w/o a gun for protection.

I am in favor of strong gun control, but one gun for protection is not the same as the nut with a safe full of glocks and semi-automatics.

you don't explain why. If it's simply that you live alone, may I recommend a german shepard as a companion/deterrent. The dog will discourage intruders from even attempting to enter your premises and greet you warmly when you come home at night. The dog will let you know someone is trying to break in and give you time to call 911 or get out. The dog can see in the dark, the intruder can't. You can teach a dog to disarm someone - I did. A german sheppard can exert from 240-750 lbs of bite pressure on someone's wrist - believe me, they will drop their gun.

As to guns, I stand by my original statement that their purpose is to kill or injure. Sport shooting etc is a secondary adaptation. Also when I say guns, I am not talking about the air variety, although they too can be lethal. You might be able to scare off an unarmed intruder with a gun, but I wouldn't count on it. It's just as likely that he'll rush you and take your gun away, since the average person is likely to hesitate before firing. You could just as easily be killed with your own weapon. An armed intruder, on the other hand, wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone who has a gun.

I have two dogs. I have them for companionship, but they are also deterrents to intruders.

I also have locks on my doors and outside lights.

I also have a six shooter.

If they get past the locks and the dogs, they will meet the six shooter. Women are at a huge disadvantage against intruders. Guns are a way to level the playing field.

Sport shooting is very common where I come from, the deep south. I think a lot of northerners or city dwellers don't understand guns. Most people I knew growing up had guns. They didn't kill people...some hunted. It's a hobby for some. It's tradition, as well. Guns are not evil to them (or me). They also respected guns. No one ever pulled out a gun in front of me when I was a kid. My paw paw kept his antique gun collection hanging on a wall in a replica log cabin. He had a useable gun locked up in a safe (I only found that out after he passed away).

But certainly assault weapons or high count mags don't figure into the hobby or self-protection categories. Just because something can be use for bad is not a reason to ban it for everyone.

As for scaring off intruders...too late. I have in fact scared off an intruder. I pointed my gun at him through the window by the door, as he was trying to break in. As soon as he saw the gun, he dropped his credit cards and crowbar, raised his hands and said "don't shoot!" and then ran away like the wind, jumping an eight foot iron gate.

Yes, I could be killed with my own weapon. But you see, any intruder doesn't need a gun to kill me. Odds are that I will be raped and/or killed, if an intruder gets in. I don't have much to lose. Most intruders aren't armed, but if he is...you think my life is not in danger to begin with? Like I said, women are at a large disadvantage with intruders. They are usually larger, their arms are longer (they can strangle you from a distance, while you can't even reach them), they are stronger, and they are used to conflict. I don't stand a chance in arm to arm combat with an intruder.

My gun levels the playing field. If I'm going to get killed by an intruder, I'm going to do my best to see that he goes with me, and that I put up as much fight as I can. I need to protect myself and my dogs and my home. I also know how to shoot.

I don't know if you're a man or a woman, but the things that have happened to me. Men just don't know how it can be for women.

and you apparently know how to use it. As much as I would love to live in a world without guns, I realize that circumstances are not the same for everyone. Of course if I were you, I would move somewhere safer. Perhaps that's not possible for you. If you are reasonably healthy, with no physical disabilities, you could take a course in martial arts. You don't have to be very big to take down a man, if you know how to do it. It's not dependent on strength. A woman can be trained to be lethal without a weapon. Just a suggestion.

I wish you a very Merry and Safe Holiday Season.

It's a typical largish city. It's not even that large. But women living alone are targeted. The first incident I had was when I was living alone at age 17 or 18 in a small city of about 65,000. I was nodding off late at night, when the window near the foot of my bed...I heard the screen being slowly cut. At least that's what it sounded like. I froze. I listened intently. The slow cutting cont'd. Or was I imagining it? I reached over to the phone and called a friend and chatted a few minutes...as I told him, I thought I heard something but I was sure it my imagination and wanted to chat a bit so I could go to sleep. I didn't notice the cutting sound anymore. I got off the phone and went to sleep.

The next morning, I walked out around back (I lived in like a little bldg that was like a temporary bldg set by itself in back of someone's property). I looked at the window in the back, and to my horror, the screen was cut all across the bottom and up one side, and the screen latch had been flipped up, to take the screen off.)

It was then that I realized what danger I was in, as a girl living alone. (What's really creepy is that I was sure it was someone who knew me, since it was a secluded, off the beaten path area, and no one would've known I lived there, except people who knew me, or friends of people who knew me.)

I'm in my 50's now, so I don't think martial arts would help me much in one on one combat with a man. (Although I did take karate lessons decades ago.) But that's an interesting thought...a self defense course for women like me....healthy, spunky, but older). But of course, I'm slower now and don't have the stamina to fight that a younger male street guy would have.

I also watched a criminal defense show on PBS years ago and learned a couple of things. Here's what I learned:

1. If you are confronted by a stranger with a gun, who wants to take you to some other location, do not go. Statistics show that you will most likely be murdered, if you go. Criminals who take victims to other locations are likely to be fulfilling a sick fantasy, and statistics are good that part of that fantasy is death. You are better off making a run for it right there, or fighting. You may get killed that way, but you will most likely be murdered if you go with him. This is your best chance, as bad as it is.

2. If you are confronted by a male criminal in your home or anywhere, it's probably best to run like hell and get away. People often freeze, or try to reason with criminals.

3. If you can't run away and are cornered, it's best to drop to the floor and fight with your legs. A woman's arms are no match for a man's arms (her arms are shorter and much weaker, even if the man is small....men just have more muscle and long arms - like gorillas!). But a woman's legs are closer to a match to a man's arms...her legs are stronger than her arms, and longer than his arms. (It's no accident that karate involves major use of leg fighting.)

Tips to pass on to your women friends. Who would've thought of dropping to the ground and kicking a criminal? But I feel safe, for the most part. These incidents happened years apart. So the gun is for just in case. I don't have it sitting out, ready to use. But it is handy, and it is loaded. Just in case. (Note: If I had children around, I probably wouldn't have a gun. The danger to the kids would outweigh any possible danger from strangers.)

are you in a room? look around-
refrigerators are made so kids can't get trapped inside. at one point they weren't
there are laws so kids don't get crushed by TVs
there is a law about how hot a coffee pot can stay so you don't scald yourself.
there is a bracket that comes with an oven so it won't tip over on a kid.

are you in public?
those trucks? anyone can have a small pickup. if the truck is over a certain weight, you need a special license to drive it. and classes,etc.
if the truck is full of something HAZARDOUS, you need an even more special license, and take more classes.

do you see any tanks driving around in public? or F-1 race cars?

so, yes, virtually EVERYTHING is registered by degree of harm. except guns

Just an elaboration of the standard RW fascist NRA talking point. And thus full of shit.

who and what? where?

Per capita.


I believe car-related death rates have remained relatively flat.



Not that the dead people are any more or less dead from one particular mode or another. But the background death rate of automobiles is something like 40,000 dead a year during normal, legal usage. The rate of guns is far lower for normal, legal usage.

We're talking 200 or so civilian justifiable homicides, 400 or so police justifiable homicides, and a couple of hundred (IIRC) negligent discharges and other sorts of accidental deaths during normal, legal usage.

The vast majority of gun-related deaths are self-inflicted wounds (suicide) at about 18,000 a year (of course, we don't know how many traffics deaths are disguised suicides), and 12,000 or so murders, which are of course criminal activities.

I'll note that most school buses are off the road by 4pm or so, and the drunk-driving problem doesn't kick in for a few more hours.

car deaths- they were kind of flat before 2006- wikipedia
2006 42,642
2007 41,059
2008 37,261
2009 33,808
2010 32,885
2011 32,367 down 23%

and the homicide rate from 2011 is 18.4 percent or so less than 1991

so that's good

i doubt your experience on the drinking/drunk driving thing- 30 or 40% of drunk accidents happen during the day, and i'd say those are the worst drunks, as they are probably not employed, being loaded in the middle of the day...

paste your math here if you want, i'm not gonna look it up.

A reduction of a little under 50%.

Pick another year in the vicinity of 1991 and you still get a reduction of more than 40%.

i don't really care what the number is, is it supposed to mean that guns aren't dangerous?

i don't follow.

the rate is falling. that's good. how does that make guns less dangerous?

isn't it falling because people at least try to solve the problem of them being lethal?

exactly the way the rate for cars goes down?

does that have something to do with cars or guns somehow?

or a random post-generating robot?

Not only down, but down per capita.

Hmmm... although, maybe it's deaths per million miles driven that's been flat. Note that right after the Great Recession the raw numbers plummeted. Right when unemployment spiked and, presumably, people began driving less.




Trying to remember what I read in Popular Mechanics or one of the car magazines in the not-too-distant past.

Anyway, here's a graph from data I got from the US DoJ and the UK Home Office.




You can see that the US rate drops from 9.3 to 5.7; that's a 38.7% drop.