Summations Only

I said that Vimesey didn't.I'm sure there's all kinds of anti-gun folks who think they can have an appreciable effect on innocent deaths by focusing on gun control. The argument is that if someone really cared about preventing innocent death, then they would focus on things that aren't negligible. If someone is focusing on something that has a negligible cause, then I doubt that the thing they say they are trying to prevent is actually the reason they are focusing on it.That, or they're just an idiot. I don't think Vimesey is an idiot. I think he was using emotive cases to bolster his preconceived position. That's why I said that he didn't really care about the things he said. Because if he did, then he'd be focusing on things that actually mattered.Guns cause such a relatively low number of innocent deaths, that focusing on it under the guise of preventing innocent deaths, makes you look insincere because there are so many other things that you could focus on that would actually have an appreciable effect.

We covered that earlier in the thread: Cars have a useful function, so we have to balance the benefits with the dangers. Guns have no useful function (in the hands of the vast majority of users) so the dangers are paramount.

So fuck seat belt laws, workplace safety laws.Your argument is so ludicrous it is idiotic.
People can be for gun control and also be working to stop disease and poverty from killing people. To equate the two thing is disingenuous at best but a classic ammosexual response.You were completely destroyed a couple years ago on your whole suicides don't count argument. If you want to try that argument again bring it on.Also, you make claim that people that want gun control just don't like guns and are afraid of them. This is a motivator for some but not anywhere near a universal statement. I am a gun owner. I and my gun owner friends want more gun laws in place. Cuz, if nothing is done now people are gonna get fed up and force real drastic gun control.You claim the other side is just making emotional appeals. All you have are emotional appeals.How about instead of calling people idiots you make rational arguments?

Yes, for example I could be in favor of universal healthcare, higher taxes on tobacco products, universal vaccination, mandatory seatbelt laws, sex education that includes how to put on a condom ... oh, wait, I am.If the only way I wanted preventable deaths to be prevented was by keeping assault weapons out of the hands of lunatics, then your point would not be completely stupid. But it isn't, so it is.

Nor do I think you are. I just think you're wrong. I dispute that my position is preconceived. It is my position after a great deal of thought. I will concede that the cases are emotive however. This is not as a result of any effort on my part, though. Only when you compare them to day to day causes of natural death, such as heart disease. Otherwise, the record's not so good.

hAnd my point is that this is false. First there is the nuclear proliferation concept. We can include other weapons, grenades, miniguns, cannons, 500lb conventional bombs. If all of these were legal to own, but were only involved in 10,000 deaths in the USA per year - while bringing a sense of safety and being enjoyed by hobbyists. Then yes, I think it would be reasonable that if someone where to say:"We'd have thousands of fewer deaths if we just stopped allowing people to carry grenades or store large bombs"And that reducing the number of people dying is the driving force behind petitioning for a ban.Even if an order of magnitude more people die from heart attacks.An easier example might be a new designer drug. The drug kill 70% of people who try it (as in 70% of those who try it will, at some point, die as a result of it). It's new and its constituents are not illegal, nor is there any law against the combination of ingredients. It's just difficult to make, requiring very high skill and knowledge as well as access to difficult or expensive materials or equipment. Only 100 people a year try it for the first time (we shan't worry about how money is being made in the industry).Should we decline to ban the substance in favour of a law mandating 20 minutes of daily exercise? If we were really interested in saving lives, and all. Then tell me, in an ordinal list ranking deaths in order of per capita incidents, how far down the list do we have to go before someone who is trying to do something about it is not so doing because of their wish to save lives?I'll help out, there were about 10,000 people killed in drink-driving (or drunk-driving) incidents in the USA per year for the last few years. If someone in 1991 (when it was around 15,000) had suggested improving enforcement, lowering the legal limit, or some other measure - would you be arguing it was inane of them to suggest they are doing so because of their desire to save (a mere) 5,000 lives a year? (I appreciate things like general vehicle safety and medical technology are confounding factors, but they confound against your hypothesis as far as I can tell). Well it's a relative thing, isn't it.Firearms: 30,000 deaths (over 95% of which is intent to harm)
Poison: 43,000 deaths (15-25% intentional harm)
Falling: 27,000 deaths (less than 3% intentional) sourceOf an arbitrary selection of injury related deaths of about the same magnitude (alcohol and motor accidents likewise, but intentionality is probably low in these situations too).So, you might argue not that people are particularly annoyed by guns because they cause unprecedented amount of deaths, but that guns are used to intentionally harm many people which could be mitigated by reducing the amount of guns there are available.I'm not saying that say, removing most guns, would mean all death rates stayed the same, but you'd lose the firearms figures. It seems to me though, that it should reduce the overall deaths, injuries, and associated fear, anger and sadness of those in the periphery. Which would be what? They're scared of loud sudden noises? The smell of gunpowder makes them want to puke? They are well-jel of the mad skillz the 1337 has, innit? How about, they are concerned that everybody being armed with efficient killing tools poses a public safety concern?You wanted to contrast death by injury with death by illness:

quote:

---

Meanwhile, ~500,000 died from heart disease, and another ~500,000 from cancer. Hell, ~50,000 people died from the flu and pneumonia.

---

2500 minors die from from gun incidents.
I can't find any reliable stats about mortality from heart disease in minors. A lot of stuff about congenital heart conditions (about 3,000 if you're interested), I'm not sure if that counts in your stats or if infant congenital deaths are excluded.The point being, that providing a breakdown relating to age is particularly important when talking about disease. After all, everybody dies of something eventually, and its not surprising that it's usually a disease that gets credit.Unless you think we should have had a 2500 post discussion about America has morally failed by allowing the proliferation of senescence.

Safety regulations regarding roads and vehicles have reduced traffic fatalities by about 20,000 annually since the 1970's, despite total vehicle miles increasing seven-fold.If it works for cars, why not for guns?--Percy

You're the only one here displaying such a callous disregard. What's not to like about guns if it weren't for all the murder and mayhem? You need to put brain in gear before engaging fingers. If guns weren't responsible for 30,000 deaths annually in the US, if the figure were something more like 50 (lightening), few would be much concerned.--Percy

I think you realize that what's monstrous about your views is that you put a higher value on your fun than on human life.--Percy

As someone earlier noted, you *are* taking the Faith approach. Denying the obvious with a straight face is a rhetorical device, not evidence in your favor. The correlation between gun prevalence and gun deaths is clear. The fewer and safer we make guns the fewer will be gun deaths.--Percy

Would it be the same with a cross-bow?Would it be the same burning holes with a laser rifle?Or do you need a visceral feeling of gun going off with odeur de gunsmoke?Would a cap pistol suffice? A cap-pistol-laser-rifle combo?How about the visuals compared to video games like Bond (where you can pretend to save the world)?How about playing paint-ball?I'm just curious what is the reasoning here.Enjoy

I'm not particularly enamored with guns. I don't even like to play shoot 'em up video games. But I can relate to people who like to do target shooting. When I was on active duty, I was required to maintain a qualification with a firearm despite the fact that I never actually carried one and was never assigned one. I always found the practice needed, which was just a couple of sessions before each qualification test, challenging and reasonably enjoyable. For me the issue was overcoming my physical reaction to the noise and recoil reasonably well enough to achieve a high score. I think the fact that I shot relatively infrequently added to the challenge.I never picked up a firearm any other time, but I really don't find it hard to imagine people doing target shooting for fun, and of course lots of people do that and never have loaded guns or ammo at home. Some people don't even bring their guns home.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Imagine how much fun you could have with a shredder.(I had another joke but Dr. A beat me to the punch.)

And I can see where gun clubs could serve that purpose, acting as an armory for the members, even for automatic weapons, and also where you would have to check your gun out to go hunting -- they could make sure you were proficient with the weapon, seemed mentally stable, issue gun and ammunition appropriate for hunting, and act as a repository if weapons in case of invasion or insurrection (under the local police-chief\sheriff command) and that this would fill the second amendment qualifications for the formation of a well regulated militia.What I don't like is vigilante "justice" (al la Zimmerman or people that shoot intruders).Enjoy.