So, how many times have you been harmed by a gun?

_________________
That's weak sauce!

It comes down to those choices for YOU. In reality, you don't get option 1 (only the government can protect you) because we have a thing called the constitution which guarantees our right to keep and bear arms (guns if you will). You don't HAVE to own a gun, you can count on the government to protect you if that is your desire, but don't stamp out my right to choose how someone else chooses to protect themselves.

I was having fun. You can't even do that right. Chiefhawk had some good points on one of the gun threads, I can't keep up with them all. I've really stated all my opinions and pretty much have given up on the gun debate with people that can't be swayed by sensible legislation.

The constitution can be amended. Least of my worries.

The point is the availability of guns in our country makes it that more dangerous. Guns aren't preventing gun violence, they are creating it.

I will absolutely try and stamp out your way of "protecting" yourself when I believe that way creates a less safe society.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

I suppose that all depends on your definition of responsible. Most of my collection is used for shooting sports and fun at the range, so they stay in the safes while not in use. I have invested a fair bit of coin in quality safes to keep would be thieves from nabbing them. That said, I also believe in the right to defend my home, so a loaded shotgun sits within reach of my bedside, and I'm not about to unload it everyt time I leave the house. I'm a Washington State CPL holder and sometimes carry a small 9mm pistol.

_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro

He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000

This type of thinking is something I totally disagree with. I always hated teachers who chose to take away something from the whole class just because a couple of kids were behaving irresponsibly. More than a few people have made driving dangerous (in fact much more dangerous than guns), yet I don't see you clamoring to ban driving. Hmmm...could it be maybe because YOU have an interest in driving and would think it unfair to have your driving priveleges revoked? Apply that same scenario to gun owners and maybe you can see how it makes them feel.

The best way the government can protect us is to allow us to protect ourselves.

Actually, guns are far more dangerous than cars.

Let's look at this. Every year 14 billion rounds of ammunition is produced in the world. Let's say the US uses 50% of those (just for fun). And let's say we shoot 50% of those each year. That brings us to 3.5B rounds of ammunition are fired each year (there are also a TON of bullets being used by the military which are included in this statistic, but let's keep a nice big number).

So we can say that inherently that neither a gun sitting on a desk or a car sitting in a driveway is dangerous. Just the use of the gun (hence bullet statistics).

So out of 3.5B rounds fired in the US (not accurate, probably way too high) and there are 11,000 MURDERS (not including suicides) that we are aware of each year. That means that there is one bullet used in a murder for every 318K bullets fired.

Now let's look at cars. For comparison, let's look at miles driven.

In the US there are ~200m vehicles. The average amount driven per year is 12.5k. That equals to 2.5T miles. There were 33,000 traffic fatalities last year.

Using the same logic, let's go ahead and see... That's one death for every 75,757,575 miles driven (and only a SMALL MINORITY are intentional).

In reality firearms cause the deaths of ~31k people a year [intentional suicides, murders/unintentional] meaning 1 death every 112,000 bullets fired.

You tell me what's more dangerous.

One death every 75 million miles driven or one death every 112,000 bullets fired?

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

So Grant: How did you know the firearms you purchased were not stolen? Just curious.

_________________
If you're walking on thin ice, you might as well dance.................................................Mom

Wasn't it you who complained about others using numbers "they like"?

If not, still quiet a stretch to equate miles=bullets. Hope you didn't pull anything making that quantum leap.

_________________
That's weak sauce!

It's not a stretch because those are usage statistics compared to deaths.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

First you have to tell me why bullets fired and miles driven should be compared as equals.

A lot of what you discuss is not wholly a bad starting point, but there are people who are also debating here the actual banning of guns. You are not one of them, You and I could probably debate actual solutions better knowing the fact that you aren't attempting to ban the actual weapons. We'd still have disagreements, but what you fail to notice is that I am not against better rules, I am stringently against banning of weapons and accessories. This particular path is the wrong one. We agree on this The legislation is semantics, because no matter what you and I debate here as good or bad ideas, they will go nowhere, but there are those in office (and in this forum) who would love to see a ban on guns across the board. I always have and always will draw a hard line stance on that.

Usage of a vehicle vs. usage of a gun. I feel like this isn't hard to understand.

I'm sorry you're unable to come to grips that the use of a vehicle is in fact nearly 700x safer.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

MAYBE (and just barely a maybe) if you used trips taken with a car to compare to bullets shot with a gun, you MIGHT (just might) be closer to something reasonable, but still you are not really making a very valid comparison. The fact is there are 62 million registered automobiles in the US and approximately 200 million guns in the US.

so if you want to compare, let's look

Autos: 40,000 deaths / 62 million automobiles - .06451 percent deaths per car annually

Guns: 30,000 deaths / 200 million guns - .015 percent deaths per gun

That puts the auto rate at 4.3 times higher

Lol, you know that's a completely bullshit comparison. Don't try to pass it off as legitimate. Usage is far more important and accurate assessment.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Lol, you know that's a completely bullshit comparison. Don't try to pass it off as legitimate. Usage is far more important and accurate assessment.[/quote]


Of course YOU believe that, because it fits your "Ban All Guns" belief, but honestly, your comparison is much much worse. The facts are the facts. There are more guns than cars, and less death by guns than by cars. The only reason you don't like the comparison, is because you don't want to ban cars

Cars are used to transport goods and people trillions of miles each year. Handguns (the majority of homicide related firearm deaths) have one purpose only. Kill.

You want to compare accidental deaths in a vehicle with intentional deaths by handguns?

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

The U.S. Military ultimately is designed to protect and kill, much like a gun. Should we get rid of it and show the world what a wonderful peaceful nation we are?

_________________
"Our Quarterback is a Bad Man!" - Michael Robinson

I didn't bring up the comparison. I said using them was a stretch, but if you are going to use them, you should attempt to use the most reasonable comparison. You didn't chart the distance each bullet travelled, but you did that for each car. Statistics show that most trips in a car are close to home and most accidents happen within a few miles from home, so counting all the miles together dillutes the actual statistic. Cars/Guns is not a great comparison, but if you want to compare, the numbers I gave are a truer comparison.

Also, guns are not just used to kill people. Stating something like this as fact either shows extreme bias or extreme ignorance on your part. Either way, it totally washes away any arguments you might make.

Cars and guns argument is goddamn stupid.

Anyone here familiar with Australia's gun control legislation in 1996? I'm just reading up on it now. I would copy that and be happy from what I see so far. Buy back program for all self loading and semi-automatic weapons, except for special circumstances for sport. It's more extreme than a lot on here are talking about, but it has cut their firearm homicide rate by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate by 65 percent. Although their homicide rate was low to begin with, so there is a debate on whether that showing would be transferable to a larger population.

The guidelines are much more clear cut. None of this "military style assault rifle" non-sense.