Summations Only

How about an example?

Sorry, I misunderstood what you had or had not asserted about that chart. I see now you just posted a link to the site. When supposed data is presented in such a misleading fashion it sends up red flags and brings the whole presentation into question. Incompetence has the same effect as lying but without the same intent. Either way, the site looks like propaganda, not a factual analysis of the effect of gun ownership.HBD

I am talking about examples of gun control regulations that unfairly target good guys?

I don't think that is really true. But if your whole argument is that honest, law-biding citizens should not be stripped of their rights to have a gun(s) for recreational purposes, I would not have an argument with you. I own a couple guns myself, and I enjoy shooting and hunting (although I don't have the time or the place to do so anymore).But that is not the whole of your argument. You believe that if more people carried guns in public situations and were free to use them to kill "bad guys" that the crime and violence situation would be better. That is the major point I take issue with.I also object to creating some kind of demographic that suggests that inner-city blacks (or whatever other demographic you might suggest) are the bad guys that should not be allowed access to guns, while rural whites are the good guys who should be armed to protect the country from the "bad guys." And along the same lines, I object to anything that devalues the lives of those in these high-crime areas and suggests that their lives being lost are not important enough for us to make significant changes to our gun laws. As if my "right to own a gun" trumps another's right to not be killed needlessly by a gun.I also disagree that the answer to all of this is to introduce more guns or to make guns more available and accessible. You don't reduce violence by introducing more violence.Another point to make here is that the major source of guns used in the commission of crimes are obtained illegally, often by stealing them from the honest citizens and selling them through pawn shops and the black market. If the source of these weapons dried up, the criminals would no longer have weapons to use. One gun control regulation I would support is that gun owners would need to demonstrate that they have adequate means to secure their weapons from theft and misuse.HBD

Sure, I'll do that when I get a chance. Tangle has posted a very similar chart, with pretty much the same countries in Message 2115. I'll see how that compares as well.One thing I have point out is that one of the answers to gun violence is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Illegal duns amount to a large share of gun deaths (I think I read 80% but I would need to go back and verify that). However, I was mistaken as to the source of illegal guns. I thought most came from thefts, but it turns out it is corrupt gun dealers and lax gun laws that permit the illegal gun trade. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...of-illegal-g_b_2440791.html

quote:

---

In fact, according to the Mayor's office, 85 percent of the guns used in gun crimes in New York City come from out-of-state, and at least 90 percent of these guns are illegal.

---

Here is an interactive site that relates illegal gun export/import to state gun laws. You can click on a state to see which laws that have and have not enacted and whether they are a net importer or exporter of guns. You can also click on the laws to see which states have and have not enacted the law and what the effects are on illegal gun trade.You will find that states with the highest gun deaths are net importers from states who have the most lax gun laws. I think it provides a clear picture of how gun laws are directly related to gun deaths.HBD

Faith, check out this website http://www.tracetheguns.org/#It is an interactive site that traces illegal guns used in gun murders and relates them to gun laws. You can click on a state to see whether they are a net importer or exporter and where the guns come from. It also shows which gun laws each state has enacted. You can also click on a law and see which states have enacted that law and its effect on illegal gun trade.So here is the list of laws: Allows Criminal Penalties for Buying a Gun for Someone who Can't
Allows Criminal Penalties for Buying a Gun with False Information
Allows Criminal Penalties for Selling a Gun without a Proper Background Check
Requires Background Checks for all Handgun Sales at Gun Shows
Requires Purchase Permit for All Handgun Sales
Grants Law Enforcement Discretion in Issuing Concealed Carry Permits
Prohibits Violent Misdemeanor Criminals from Possessing Guns
Requires Reporting Lost or Stolen Guns to Law Enforcement
Allows Local Communities to Enact Gun Laws
Allows Inspections of Gun DealersThese are the types of laws that gun control "fanatics" want to enact. These are the common sense loopholes and work-arounds that honest, law-biding gun owners SHOULD want enacted. Which of these laws do you feel unfairly restrict legal, honest gun owners? Why is there so much resistance to these laws?HBD

But, I'm not sure Percy has made the argument that more guns is the cause of more deaths, just that there is a positive correlation. So we COULD conclude that more guns cause more deaths or that more deaths cause more guns or some other third factor is influencing both. It is a simple correlation - more guns correlate with more gun deaths. So the question then becomes which factor can we have the most direct influence on? We already have laws that make it illegal to murder, so what sense would it make to make it more illegal. What we don't have is good, effective measures to control gun numbers and whose hands they fall into.Percy, and no one else as far as I can tell, is not arguing that the answer is to reduce the number of legal gun owners, to restrict guns in the hands of "good guys" while allowing the "bad guys" unlimited access. But reducing the number of guns available to "bad guys" DOES reduce the number of guns overall. So the point stands... reducing the number of guns will reduce the number of gun murders.But at the same time, giving more citizens the opportunity to use their gun to kill a "bad guy" doesn't solve the problem either. What a terrible idea to have a bunch of vigilantes running around ready to "defend" themselves. I can see where certain situations it may have been a positive to have someone who had a gun and could have stopped a criminal. Like the school shootings for instance. But if we are going to have armed guards in our schools, they should be trained law enforcement officers, not some parent who knows how to aim and shoot. But you left out some valuable data there. What is the gun ownership in each of those sectors? Gun violence affects us as a nation. Should we white, suburbanites not be concerned about what happens in urban areas. Should we look the other way and say "As long as it doesn't spill over into our comfy, safe neighborhoods?" But it HAS.HBD

I read a blog argument the other day that brought this point up. His (or her) contention was that death by automobile was primarily a white, middle class problem, so it got all the recognition and a lot of effort was put into making automobiles and teenage drivers safer. Gun violence is disparagingly a inner-city black problem, so gets very little attention. For example, in 2012 there were 435 gun murders in Chicago, which equates to an average of 36 per month. However, these statistics get very little national attention. However, in December of that year, a gunman kills 26 students at a suburban school and all of of sudden the nation is up in arms about gun violence.I think this is a point you and I are both trying to make: it is human lives that are being lost to gun violence. Trying to make a distinction between "inner-city" violence and "good guys" is nothing but dehumanizing the people who are continually seeing their loved ones shot to death.HBD

How strong would you stand by this statement: "I am not concerned about gun violence because it is primarily a black, inner-city problem."HBD

Who do you suppose these people will be who will start carrying guns if allowed? People like you and me who the last thing they want to do is shoot someone? Will it be people who don't live in fear of governmental conspiracies or that there is some crazy killer behind every corner? Or will it be the person who wants to be a vigilante? Or who lives in an area where there is already high gun homicide rate? This where the whole idea of how to tell the difference between a good guy and a bad guy comes in. How about laws that regulate who can and cannot have access to guns? There obviously needs to be a lot more work done in this area as those that would use a firearm in the commission of a crime still have access to them. I have a lot of experience with guns. I also have a lot of experience with gun owners as well as a lot of experience with the kinds of people who would love to have open carry laws passed and allowed unlimited access. I find it silly that you would think that allowing more people these kinds of freedoms would result in less gun deaths.HBD

But you have already declared statistics untrustworthy and "bogus in every possible way." And you have also stated that you have no interest in learning anything about how to understand statistics. So why would you say this and accuse others of "ignoring" it? But don't you think human life is valuable even if that human life is an "evil thug?"Personally, I can imagine some situations where I would not hesitate to kill someone. But, those situations would be so extreme and so rare that there is almost no chance that I will ever have to face it. I am not going to carry a gun around or keep a gun within easy reach just in case one of the 1 in a million chance events happen. I suppose if it ever does I will wish I had kept a gun handy, but at this point, the risk is just not worth it. And no, I would not shoot someone for stealing my television, or my car, or my jewelry.Besides, based on our discussion on Calvinism, don't you believe that if an "evil thug" attacks and maims you that it is because God has caused it to happen? Are you suggesting we try to use guns to thwart God's will? Or is it also God's will that good Christian men and women use their guns to kill the bad guys the he sent to maim and kill them? I fail to see how your position on this thread is consistent with your position on the Calvinism thread. I have looked at that study you are wishing someone would explain, and I have done some analysis of my own, but I don't have time right now to get into it. Maybe later tonight or in the next couple of days.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : typo

That type of technology already exists to a degree, its called a grip safety. The problem is, I don't think it would stop a small hand from activating it and pulling the trigger. Like you said, maybe the safety should be lower on the grip so a small hand could not activate it.But I think the bigger issue is why would someone leave the gun in a cocked and ready to fire condition. Leave the chamber empty while storing it - whether in your purse or your closet or nightstand, whatever. It only takes a second to pull the action back and load a round into the chamber. Once the action is pulled back and the hammer set, it is very easy to pull the trigger - pull weights can be as low as 2 lbs, but are more typically 5 - 10 lbs.Without a round in the chamber, the gun will absolutely NEVER fire accidentally. And a 2 or 3 year-old is not very likely to be able to pull the action back. I would not refer to these shooting as "tragic accidents," but complete irresponsibility on the parts of the gun owners.HBD

I think NoNukes was being sarcastic.HBD

Lol. I think NoNukes needs a lesson in Irony PunctuationHBD(see what I did there?)

I agree that they probable think this way. It's stupid though. I would think just racking a shell into the chamber would be incredibly intimidating. So just the act of pulling the action back may be enough to deter the criminal and then you don't need to shoot... oh wait, shooting the "bad guy" is kinda the point isn't it? Oh well, I guess just keep taking chances that your 2 year old will blow you away. We need to be SAFE!HBD