Gun Control III

I am quite tired of the whole canard about Switzerland and it's gun laws. Yes Switzerland has high gun ownership, but they have strict laws on that ownership.Here are some examples.
In order to purchase most weapons, the purchaser must obtain a weapon acquisition permit.
In order to purchase ammunition, the buyer must follow the same legal rules that apply when buying guns.
To carry a firearm in public or outdoors a person must have a gun carrying permit.
Even the vaunted Swiss Militia does not live up to the gun nut hype. Though the militia members have their weapons at home they are not supplied ammo. They must go to their armory in order to get ammo.
Firearms regulation in Switzerland - Wikipedia
Unlike what gun nuts want to people to believe Switzerland has very strict gun laws.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Another gun nut argument that is pernicious but very east to destroy.
If we based our society on the premise that is the basis of the ‘Criminals don’t follow laws’ and ‘Gun Control only hurts law-abiding citizens’ argument against gun control, then why have any laws at all.I truly wonder about the morality of people that follow this line of thinking.

quote:

---

After all, when gun advocates say that they are being ‘hurt’ by gun control, let’s be clear what the actual implication of this statement is: my right to not be bothered in the least by regulation outweighs the right to life for thousands of innocents who die in the absence of said regulation. Not only can such gun reforms reduce the number of homicides, but there is very little controversy about the tremendous effect they would have at reducing suicides. So, the belief that laws aimed at saving lives hurt law-abiding citizens is completely incompatible with any sane definition of right and wrong.

---

Rebutting the ‘Criminals don’t follow laws’ and ‘Gun Control only hurts law-abiding citizens’ argument against gun control – Armed With ReasonDebunking the “Criminals Don’t Follow Laws” Myth 2.0: Why Gun Control Works – Armed With ReasonI know the gun nuts don't care and will not take them to read, but both these articles have numerous links to hard data and actual studies. Something gun nuts never seem to provide.

Canada's gun laws are pretty similar. You can actually purchase a lot of the same types of guns that are available in the USA in Canada. It's just that ownership is more restricted. Which makes sense in my humble opinion.I think the larger issue is the gun culture. While European's had guns and obviously used them, the American experience is different in that the pioneers often had to protect themselves and their property from would-be thieves or violent individuals. There was more lawlessness in the American frontier and as a result, gun ownership became a necessity in the past. Couple this with the American Revolution being handled in large part by armed militias and you get the situation that we have now whereby many Americans still feel like a gun is required to protect themselves and their property.Now I have no issue with someone who may want a firearm for protection. I personally have never had the need, but being that guns are so numerous in the USA, its hard to fault some folks who think they need to be armed at all times. Especially in some of the more high crime areas of the country.But as I mentioned in a previous posts, the gun culture issue is a hard nut to crack. But my assertion is that a better focus on the core issues that cause gun crime may be a prudent first set of steps. The drug war. Gang violence. The Black Market. If I was a Democrat, I would adjust focus to target those things. It would be harder for lobbying agencies like the NRA to rebuff those types of policies since it would be treating the disease directly.

After all the unbelievable claims we've seen in this thread about how incredibly careful gun owners are with their firearms it is a welcome jolt of reality to see this report from the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) about the number of guns trying to pass through airport security: TSA Year in Review: A Record Setting 2018. This is straight out of the report (bolding and links same as original):

quote:

---

Thanks to their vigilance and skills, TSA officers intercepted a record number of firearms in 2018.

​

• A record setting 4,239 total firearms were discovered in carry-on bags at checkpoints across the country, averaging 81.6 firearms per week. That’s an average of 11.6 firearms per day.
• 3,656 (86.15 percent) of the total firearms discovered were loaded - another record.
• 1,432 (33.74 percent) of the total firearms discovered had a round chambered.
• The most firearms discovered in one month - a record setting 32 - were discovered in August at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.
• Firearms were intercepted at 249 of the 440 federalized airports.
• That’s more than a 7 percent (282 more) increase in firearm discoveries from 2017’s total of 3,957.

---

So let's boil this down. You gun nuts out there put guns in your luggage, which is legal, but the firearm must be declared when checking the baggage, it can't be in a carry-on, and it must be in a secure hardsided lockbox ("Locked cases that can be easily opened are not permitted.") . As if it's not bad enough that people tried to take so many firearms through security, 86% of the guns were loaded, and 34% had a round chambered.Think on this for a moment, you defenders of how highly trained and careful you gun nuts are. Think bell shaped curve, here's an illustration: At the right end tail of the curve we have the small population of people you're actually describing who keep their firearms and ammunition locked safely and securely away (separately) and regularly engage in practice and training. To the left of this we have a vast population of people with less and less care, respect, practice and training, becoming worse and worse as you move further left. At the far left end of the bell shaped curve we have your yahoos who buy a handgun and ammunition at Walmart, load it up when they get home, and drop it into the drawer of their nightstand.A couple weeks ago I happened to be in Walmart. I need a new pair of ski goggles, and though I didn't expect to find any I thought I'd walk through the sporting goods section anyway and possibly save myself a trip. Guns were in the last aisle. I could see what you gun nuts find so attractive. All that shiny and precise metal, all that feeling of power, of imagining the feel of the gun in your hand and squeezing off shots while holes appear in targets. It was overpowering, euphoric, intoxicating. I wanted one. Even the pellet guns called out, "Buy me, you'll love me."I shook it off and continued my shopping. Walmart had no ski goggles.You gun nuts have a point when you say guns aren't the problem, people are the problem. But look at the vastness of the belly of the bell shaped curve. How are you going to make all those people unload and lock up their guns, treat them with respect, keep up their training and practice? It can't be done. The bell shaped curve is forever - it's never going away.The car industry, with big pushes from safety groups and from Congress, recognized the bell shaped curve and have been working hard for decades making their cars safer to minimize injury and death when the inevitable accidents happen. Crash avoidance is going to be big.The gun industry could do the same and make the gun debate moot. How about a gun that sounds an alarm when left unattended and not safely locked up? Whether that's a good idea or not, you gun nuts better start working hard at ideas for true gun safety, because if you don't then we are going to at some point start taking your guns away.By the way, if you're discovered taking a firearm through airport security without declaring it the firearm will be confiscated, your case will be reported to the local prosecuting attorney, fines currently range from $1,960 to $9,800, and you'll likely never see your firearm again except in court. Bon voyage.--Percy

I sure would like to see those existing penalties applied - every time. Including when it’s, say, a state legislator wearing a suit and tie that has a pistol in his briefcase.

Let go from Henry Pratt Co. in Aurora, Illinois, Gary Martin returned to the plant with a gun yesterday afternoon and began firing on co-workers. When police arrived he began firing on them, too. In all five employees were killed, six police were injured (five by gunfire), and while details are still sketchy at this time, likely additional employees were injured.So, you gun nuts out there, feeling sane today? Feeling certain you won't be the next gun nut who goes off on a rampage? Are you having yet another lucky day where you don't get angry or depressed or mentally ill or go postal or just get careless? Do you feel lucky today? Well do you, punk? All the people in the lunchroom are laughing at you, your face burns, your anger rises, and you think of all that marvelous hard, shiny and intoxicating metal that is just waiting for you, telling you to pick it up, slip in the clip, feel the power flow up your arm, and then POW POW POW.Source: Shooter in deadly Illinois rampage had a gun with a laser sight, witness says--Percy

How ya doin. Percy? Your favorite punk here. Yes I feel lucky!

quote:

---

LET'S DO SOME MATH USING CDC NUMBERS:

​

There were 32,000 gun deaths last year.
60% are suicide.
3% are accidents.
4% are justified.
33% are homicides.
80% of homicides are gang related.

​

That leaves 1,712 people in a country with a population of 312 million.

​

You have a 0.00010256410256% chance of death by firearm.

​

If you are not part of a gang, don't commit crime or plan on committing suicide, you have a 0.000008564102564% chance of death by firearm.

​

GUNS ARE NOT A PROBLEM - THE MEDIA AND YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE LYING TO YOU AMERICA.

---

The question is, why are they lying? I have a theory about that. Would you like to hear it?

Kind of telling that you do not provide a source. CDC reports on guns make no mention of gangs. Hmm, care to actually support this claim.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Why do you feel lucky? Do you feel lucky to be so totally uninformed about the gun debate and even math that those numbers didn't look a little funny to you? Do you feel lucky to be so completely clueless as to be unable to assess whether those arguments made any sense? Do you feel lucky to be so lacking in judgment that you couldn't even formulate a response to my actual questions?Anyway, let's look at your numbers:

quote:

---

LET'S DO SOME MATH USING CDC NUMBERS:

---

The numbers are not from the CDC.

quote:

---

There were 32,000 gun deaths last year.

---

There were 40,000 gun deaths last year. It's been nearly a decade since the number of gun deaths was as low as 32,000.

quote:

---

60% are suicide.
3% are accidents.
4% are justified.
33% are homicides.
80% of homicides are gang related.

---

80% of homicides are not gang related.

quote:

---

That leaves 1,712 people in a country with a population of 312 million.

---

The US population was 312 million in 2011. Way to be current. And where did that figure of 1712 people come from? I can't wait to hear the explanation

quote:

---

You have a 0.00010256410256% chance of death by firearm.

---

Let me do a little simple math for you. 1712 people divided by 0.00010256410256% is 1.6692 billion people. The population of the US isn't anywhere close to a billion, let along 1.6692 billion. Since doing the math yields an absurdly large population for the US, the percentage is clearly wrong, plus how it was calculated is not described. Please tell us how they calculated the 0.000008564102564% figure. Garbage-in/garbage-out, Mike, and there's a lot of garbage in your figures.

quote:

---

GUNS ARE NOT A PROBLEM - THE MEDIA AND YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE LYING TO YOU AMERICA.

---

Obviously your main problem is basic math and gullibility. Before telling us your theory perhaps you could first post a message with no incorrect figures or glaring math errors.For anyone interested, Mike's figures come from this webpage.--Percy

His post is a classic example of my signature line. Fits the vast majority of fundies, wingnuts and ammosexuals we see on this site.If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?

Hi Percy,I'm afraid you've made a right balls up of your calculations there.1712/0.00010256410256 is about 16.7 million. You've accidentally added a few zeroes somehow.Now, I am not at clear on what the 1,712 is supposed to represent, I think some context has been stripped from marc9000's excerpt. The source of the percentage quoted is pretty clear, though. 32,000 is 0.00010256410256% of 312 million. So if the numbers being cited are real that would be the percentage of the US population killed by firearms in that year.ABE: Wait, sorry, it's me making the balls up. My mistake is the same one made by the author of marc9000's post. So if the original numbers are right that means 0.010256410256% of the population were killed by firearms that year. Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

Seems people are forgetting the % part.

DeletedEdited by ringo, : No reason given.

1712/0.00010256410256% (or 1712/0.0000010256410256) is about 1.67 billion. If we assume "%" was a typo then that yields your figure of 16.7 million, which is still not the population of the country, so whether the "%" was a typo or not the figure is still wrong.The 1712 figure appears to have been pulled out of thin air.The column of percentages adds to 100% (the bottom figure of "80% of homicides are gang related" is just additional (and incorrect) information and not part of the column of percentages), and once you reach 100% there is nothing left over, so it is incorrect to say, "That leaves 1,712 people in a country with a population of 312 million." 0% of anything is 0. 320 is 0.00010256410256% of 312 million, but again, if we assume "%" was a typo then you are correct on the math, but 32,000 is the total firearm deaths in 2011, not what remains "if you are not part of a gang, don't commit crime or plan on committing suicide." If we take the percentages provided for suicide, accidents, etc. and calculate that figure then it would be 13.6% of all firearm deaths, or 4352. But of course we already know just from being sane, rational and informed people that 80% of homicides are not gang related, not even close, so even once the 4352 figure is properly calculated it is still nonsense.Marc9000 pulled a random page of nonsense off the Internet and presented it unattributed. We've already given far too much attention to it. If Marc9000 can muster up the savvy to provide accurate and meaningful numbers then we can discuss them, but they're beside the point. Even if his post wasn't full of errors, it still didn't answer any of the questions asked in the message he replied to, which were about gun owners guaranteeing that they can maintain sanity and equilibrium and are not a menace to society.--Percy

Found some data on the number of gang-related homicides at NATIONAL YOUTH GANG SURVEY ANALYSIS:

quote:

---

The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2007 to 2012. During roughly the same time period (2007 to 2011), the FBI estimated, on average, more than 15,500 homicides across the United States (FBI — Table 1). These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually.

---

--Percy