Summations Only

Percy notes, parenthetically: I was thinking of Gun deaths divided by the radius to the nearest 100 guns....But even there things can be different. The problem with any plot of data is that the USA is always going to be a huge outlier that would properly be left out of any modelling.

This has come up before but I couldn't find it on google, keep coming up with safety training in where to point a gun, and I can't imagine what you mean. NEVER when pointed at people? can't shoot ONLY when pointed at people? That is you can shoot it at other things? You mean if you need it to stop a crime you can't? Or are you talking about a feature you can disable or what?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Making guns so that they won't fire when aimed at people was just an example of a way to make guns safer.The main point was that there are two ways (that I can think of) to reduce gun deaths. One is to make guns safer, the other is to reduce the number of guns.It's one of the interesting contradictions of the religious right that they're in favor of both guns and Jesus.--Percy

I guess I'll just be repeating myself to mention this, but your seeming obsession with guns and only guns prompts me to say that homicides don't need guns. New Orleans has over 57 murders per hundred thousand, but only 19 or a third of them are by guns. They are obviously so versatile in that city the ones who use guns wouldn't have any problem substituting knives or hammers or tire irons or fists or brass knuckles or whatever it is they kill with those other two thirds of the time. Surely this must reflect the mindset of the criminal areas. Why on earth do you lump them together with the noncriminal areas? I guess all you can say is More guns more gun deaths. You refuse to think beyond that. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I really WOULD like to know what on earth you mean by making guns that won't shoot when aimed at people. Are you now saying it's just something you invented or what?About guns and Jesus, I'd refer you back to the part of the thread where I brought up the preachers of the Revolutionary War era. Self defense and especially defense of freedom was taught from the Bible.

I'm only discussing the topic, while you seem to be trying to distract attention away from the lack of substance behind your position. Naturally since I value human life above all else I'm against all forms of murder, but in this thread the focus is on guns. Because the more guns the more gun deaths, I'm arguing in favor of seeking solutions that would reduce gun deaths.Replying to your Message 3185 now: I'm just suggesting a possible firearm safety feature, for guns to be unable to fire when pointed at people. I don't have a workshop where I invent things. As was slavery.--Percy

By far the majority of the preaching in the northern states was AGAINST slavery. And the preaching by the Black Robe regiment was considered by the Brits to be THE reason we won the war against them. And all I'm doing is trying to understand what this safety feature you have in mind actually does. Does it NEVER fire when pointed at someone or is that feature something that can be disabled or what? If it never fires when pointed at someone then you are basically suggesting the equivalent of doing away with guns altogether. Just trying to understand your thinking here.I'm all for reducing accidental gun deaths and injuries if at all possible. There is no way I know of to reduce gun homicides. Even reducing the number of guns really won't do that. I really do think that statistic has to be fallacious, it's just too strange. But anyway. Increased safety is a great goal, but if you are simply for making guns that won't fire at people that's not just safety, that's turning guns into props or toys. But if you have an idea for how guns could be prevented from firing if accidentally pointed at someone, by a feature that could be disabled with some effort, that could be an interesting and useful innovation. Maybe. Not that I know any more about the mechanics of guns than I suppose you do.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Percy writes: There is a third way - non-lethal defensive innovations, such as a 911-calling switch that instantly locks down all the rooms in your house (assuming windows are covered with gratings to prevent exit). Currently these things are too expensive, but there should be moneyed research programs. Also non-lethal police weapons (we have rubber bullets, tasers & tear gas, but somehow these are not the weapons of choice in the heat of the moment). I remember seeing an article showing this "gun" that sent out a huge bunch of sticky stuff to ensnare the suspect - another expensive technology. Stun darts? Captain James Tiberius Kirk: "Set your phasers on 'stun'."

Will rubber bullets stop someone charging at you for instance? What exactly do they do? I understand tasers and tear gas but not rubber bullets.

But the preaching of the south was pro-slavery, and both north and south based their positions on the Bible. Throughout its history the Bible has been used on both sides of many controversies. I wasn't making a point about slavery but about the pointlessness of supporting a position by arguing that it was "taught from the Bible." I was only providing an example of a possible gun safety feature. If you don't like the idea that's fine - I wasn't trying to change the topic of debate to technological approaches to gun safety. But I will point out that when seat belts for automobiles were first proposed it was objected that they would prevent the kind of quick exits that might be necessary in the event of submergence or fire. These are realistic possibilities, but the bottom line is that seat belts save many more lives than they lose, as do air bags. Guns that don't fire when pointed at people would likely provide a similar result in terms of saved lives. Your fantasy that when more people have guns to pull out that fewer lives would be lost is just that, a fantasy. More automobile miles, more automobile deaths. Makes perfect sense.More sugar in the diet, more obesity. Makes perfect sense.More guns, more gun deaths. Makes perfect sense, to everyone except you. You have yet to explain how anything else could be true in the real world.--Percy

Just to be clear I don't think I have ever proposed "more guns" or "more guns less deaths." What I HAVE proposed is less restrictions on those who already have guns, such as where they can carry them and that sort of thing. Not gun count, which is what you seem to be focused on.But again reducing the number of guns would only penalize the good guys because the bad guys are always going to be able to get them. If you just focus on gun count and ignore the dynamics of the gun situation you are going to end up enabling more crimes.

Normally we just assume it was the French who won you that one.Boy, us Brits hate the French for losing us one of our Colonies

Rubber bullets are intended to cause pain without being lethal. The reality is that any tiny projectile traveling in the neighborhood of a hundred or two miles per hour is very dangerous. If it strikes soft tissue the energy will be distributed and cause a very bad bruise, but if it strikes bone it can cause fractures, if it strikes the head it could cause serious concussions, fractures, blindness, etc., and it can even cause death. There are also plastic bullets, the problems are similar.--Percy

But you *do* claim that more guns mean less deaths. You keep arguing that an armed populace discourages violent crime. You continually object to the characterization that more guns means more gun deaths. You referred to the study I cited demonstrating this relationship as "strange". I don't agree that fewer guns possessed by the civilian populace means more crime, but regardless, consistent with my belief that nothing is more valuable than human life, increased crime is acceptable if it means fewer lives lost.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix typo.

But I doubt you can provide any reasonable evidence for this assertion. Please a quote from a Brit from that time period will suffice.