Gun Laws vs Death rates.

[pat34lee]

Is there any rational argument to have assault guns legal that can hold and fire 30- 60-120 bullets per minute?

Those assault guns should be illegal and any person that fights against that ban is a gun nut that does not have much logic or cares more about guns than the possibility of reducing the deaths in mass shootings! IMO

Just because you can't imagine something doesn't
mean there isn't a reason, or many reasons.

Anybody who drives an old clunker like that in your
picture is out to kill us all with carbon monoxide and
they don't care about our environment or the deaths
caused by fossil fuels.

 

[expos4ever]

you mean like Australia? The issue isn't guns, it's people and hate. America and Europe have the biggest issues because of diversity. Places where gun control works are places that are at least 95% their own kind.... and places like Norway where everyone owns one it seems and that too prevents issues.

Please provide evidence that everyone in Norway owns a gun. This I simply cannot believe.

 

[RDKirk]

The thread is about gun laws and their effect on gun deaths. The site provided showed a direct correlation. If you can find some stats for total murders in those States then provide them.

Well, we can draw that correlation with any kind of death.

Cancer has a direct correlation with cancer deaths.

Swimming pools have a direct correlation with swimming pool deaths.

You're faking the argument with that statement.

I'm as concerned with being beaten to death (almost happened to me once) as with being shot to death (also almost happened to me once).

 

[Yarddog]

Well, we can draw that correlation with any kind of death.

Cancer has a direct correlation with cancer deaths.

Swimming pools have a direct correlation with swimming pool deaths.

You're faking the argument with that statement.

I'm as concerned with being beaten to death (almost happened to me once) as with being shot to death (also almost happened to me once).

No faking anything here. Cancer has a direct correlation with cancer deaths so what do we do to cut down on those cancer deaths? Convince people to stop using items which lead to cancer and pass laws to keep products which cause cancer off the shells. See how easy that is.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . . If someone is serious about suicide they will find a way, not having access to a gun is not going to stop them.

There is no such thing as a suicide switch in the head that goes off and the person is thereafter determined they must commit suicide. Instead, there are inclinations, sometimes stronger, sometimes weaker, and if the means for suicide are more difficult to obtain, this results in fewer suicides.

 

[RDKirk]

No faking anything here. Cancer has a direct correlation with cancer deaths so what do we do to cut down on those cancer deaths? Convince people to stop using items which lead to cancer and pass laws to keep products which cause cancer off the shells. See how easy that is.

We don't pretend that cancer is the only way to die. We don't even let the National Cancer Association claim that cancer is the only way to die, or even the most significant way to die.

And if there are identifiable causes for cancer, we go after those causes rather than spending all resources trying to cure cancer after it occurs.

This is the issue: Why are Americans so violent? Because when you look at the big picture, Americans are simply more violent than any other industrialized nation.

As I said before, I'm as concerned about being beaten to death as I am about being shot--actually, I'm more concerned about being beaten to death than shot, because I'm an old man who looks more vulnerable to a beating than I did when I was young. Most women are more worried about being raped than being shot.

How much gun ownership is a reaction to the overall general level of violence that is traditionally American? If the rate of all forms of violence could be brought down, how much would the rate of gun ownership go down?

Statistics do not form a moral argument for removing a person's options to protect himself.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Is there any rational argument to have assault guns legal that can hold and fire 30- 60-120 bullets per minute?

Those assault guns should be illegal and any person that fights against that ban is a gun nut that does not have much logic or cares more about guns than the possibility of reducing the deaths in mass shootings! IMO


By Darkhorse

1. Actually, there is, as illustrated by these two examples (there are

many more):

In April 1992, a truck driver named Reginald Denney happened to be driving his truck through south central Los Angeles. The streets were full of rioters, angry about a "not guilty" verdict just handed down for some police officers. The officers had been tried for using excessive force in arresting Rodney King (I'm sure most of us remember the video). Mr. Denney was pulled out of his truck by rioters, kicked, beaten, and pummeled with bricks for several minutes. God must have been protecting him, because he came out of it relatively intact, without serious permanent injuries (as far as I know).

What he needed in his truck was a pistol or rifle capable of delivering at least 20-40 bullets rapidly. Although the crowd
numbered in the hundreds, no one wants to be among the first 15-30 people dead in the street.

No need to kill 15-30 people, NO ONE WANTS TO BE THE FIRST SECOND OR THIRD person dead in the street! You do not need an assault rifle to stop rioters from killing you. Although you used a very rare situation, I will use your example.



You referenced Reginald Denney that was hurt in the 1992 LA Riots. You indicate that a weapon that is capable of delivering at least 20-40 bullets rapidly was needed in that situation. That is not the case at all.

In that same riot Korean store owner, Kee Whan Ha, used his handgun and shot in the air and that kept him and his store safe from the rioters that had just killed a man that was within sight of Mr. Ha.


A few shots in the air drove the rioter killers away; he did not even have to kill one rioter and did not need an assault rifle or a weapon that could shoot 20-40 bullets rapidly.

If anyone wants to read the story you can at the website link below:

https://www.npr.org/2012/04/27/151526930/korean-store-owner-on-arming-himself-for-riots

Korean Store Owner On Arming Himself For Riots

The Los Angeles riots stunned the nation in 1992, claiming more than 50 lives in that city. As the unrest approached Koreatown, store owner Kee Whan Ha mobilized his fellow business owners to arm themselves and defend their property. Host Michel Martin talks with him about the riots, and the neighborhood today.

MARTIN: Did you have to fire your weapon?

HA: Yes. Actually, we are not shooting people. We are shooting (HANDGUN) - in the air, so make afraid that these people coming to us. You're not actually targeting people, so...

MARTIN: Sure. You were trying to create a - sort of a protective barrier, and you did succeed in saving your store.

HA: Yes.

https://www.npr.org/2012/04/27/151526930/korean-store-owner-on-arming-himself-for-riots

There is no need to have weapons that fire 20-40 bullets rapidly unless you are in the military and fighting a war; they should be against the law.

I do not expect the gun nuts that do not want logic to see the rationalization for the reduction of those killed in a mass shooting to change their minds. The gun nuts will fight to have weapons that can fire up to 100 bullets a minute even though banning those weapons will reduce mass killing lives.

 

[Yarddog]

We don't pretend that cancer is the only way to die. We don't even let the National Cancer Association claim that cancer is the only way to die, or even the most significant way to die.

I have a lot of respect for you Mr. Kirk but your argument make absolutely no sense. If one wants to focus on cancer deaths, then you find out the causes and present the findings. So, when you want to focus on gun deaths then you focus on what causes gun deaths. It is very simple and no one has tried to to claim that guns are the only way to die.

And if there are identifiable causes for cancer, we go after those causes rather than spending all resources trying to cure cancer after it occurs.

Correct, and the same thing is done when one to find out the causes of gun related deaths.

This is the issue: Why are Americans so violent?

Incorrect, one of the issues is "why are some Americans so violent? Americans as a whole are not that violent. As another guy pointed out after looking at stats for my state, there is a .01% of me being killed by a gun in Ky. A bigger issue is, "why are people so scared when there is a very small chance that they will be involved in a violent crime?"

A partial answer to that is too many Americans are gullible and listen to people who want to manipulate them. Gun manufacturers spend millions and millions of dollars on ways to control the thoughts of gullible Americans.

Because when you look at the big picture, Americans are simply more violent than any other industrialized nation.

So, do you surrender to the violence or do you try to change that space which you live in, your family and community?

As I said before, I'm as concerned about being beaten to death as I am about being shot--actually, I'm more concerned about being beaten to death than shot, because I'm an old man who looks more vulnerable to a beating than I did when I was young. Most women are more worried about being raped than being shot.

If you live in a violent section of town, then move. I have been in some of the worst areas in my city, Louisville, Ky. I have never been worried about being beaten because most people just do not want to hurt another person.

How much gun ownership is a reaction to the overall general level of violence that is traditionally American?

Gun ownership numbers have exploded over the past 40 years. People got scared from watching things on TV. Things which have always been there but more out of sight so people didn't react to them.

If we would turn off our TV's and stop reading newspapers those people you call violent Americans would start calming down. They could live peaceful lives because the odds that a violent crime would occur around them is quite small.

Statistics do not form a moral argument for removing a person's options to protect himself.

I've never stated one time that people shouldn't have the option to protect themselves but facts are facts and the moment that a firearm is introduced into a household that home is more dangerous. The odds that that gun will be used for suicide is about twice as likely as the gun will be used to kill an intruder.

Facts are facts and if a person is killed with a gun the perpetrator is most likely a family member or close acquaintance. Percentage wise, very few strangers kill strangers.

I am all for the 2nd amendment but people need to make common sense decisions when it comes to weapons. If you own a gun, keep it in a safe.

God bless.

 

[Radagast]

I have a lot of respect for you Mr. Kirk but your argument make absolutely no sense. If one wants to focus on cancer deaths, then you find out the causes and present the findings. So, when you want to focus on gun deaths then you focus on what causes gun deaths.

The difference is, if you eliminate cancer, you don't get a sudden spike in tuberculosis. But if you eliminate guns, people switch to other ways of killing. This is why it's important to look at total murder rates (and total suicide rates).

Facts are facts and if a person is killed with a gun the perpetrator is most likely a family member or close acquaintance. Percentage wise, very few strangers kill strangers.

Really? Have you got a source for that?

 

[Yarddog]

Really? Have you got a source for that?

I've provided them in other posts and probably to you. The CDC and FBI provide figures on these.

 

[Hank77]

Instead, there are inclinations, sometimes stronger, sometimes weaker, and if the means for suicide are more difficult to obtain, this results in fewer suicides.

Guns don't make people commit suicide. Take the guns away and how do you plan on reducing access to ropes, wire, poisons, cars, bridges, etc.?

 

[expos4ever]

You can pretty much guarantee that sites like this are lying about statistics when they don't cite their sources. For example, it is common for gun control activists to group gun suicides in with gun homicides as if depressed and suicidal people are going to magically give up on killing themselves if they can't get a gun.

Well, the data supports the idea that people often do not choose another method to commit suicide if a gun is not available:

From a Study published in the New England Journal of Medecince in 2008 (authors = Miller and Hemenway)

The empirical evidence linking suicide risk in the United States to the presence of firearms in the home is compelling. There are at least a dozen U.S. case–control studies in the peer-reviewed literature, all of which have found that a gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of suicide. The increase in risk is large, typically 2 to 10 times that in homes without guns, depending on the sample population (e.g., adolescents vs. older adults) and on the way in which the firearms were stored. The association between guns in the home and the risk of suicide is due entirely to a large increase in the risk of suicide by firearm that is not counterbalanced by a reduced risk of nonfirearm suicide. Moreover, the increased risk of suicide is not explained by increased psychopathologic characteristics, suicidal ideation, or suicide attempts among members of gun-owning households.

 

[Darkhorse]

You referenced Reginald Denney that was hurt in the 1992 LA Riots. You indicate that a weapon that is capable of delivering at least 20-40 bullets rapidly was needed in that situation. That is not the case at all.

In that same riot Korean store owner, Kee Whan Ha, used his handgun and shot in the air and that kept him and his store safe from the rioters that had just killed a man that was within sight of Mr. Ha.

That's funny - I remember news photos of the Korean store owners on their roofs with AK-47s. It very fortunate that Mr. Ha didn't have to shoot anyone, that he was able to scare them off simply by firing a handgun...but what if they had turned around and said "We can take this old guy" ? When push comes to shove (unfortunately), you need to have real power on your side, not to depend on bluffing.

How many rounds did his handgun hold? The story gives no clue. Some hold 15, 20, 25, 30...

 

[Darkhorse]

Well, the data supports the idea that people often do not choose another method to commit suicide if a gun is not available:

People in Japan do; their suicide rate is much higher than ours.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Guns don't make people commit suicide. Take the guns away and how do you plan on reducing access to ropes, wire, poisons, cars, bridges, etc.?

Fewer guns will equal fewer suicides in spite of the access to ropes, wire, poisons, cars, bridges, etc.

 

[expos4ever]

People in Japan do; their suicide rate is much higher than ours.

Not relevant to the topic, although I can understand why you would think otherwise.

No one is saying that people in other cultures will not commit suicide more often than they do in the United States. The point is that in the United States the availability of a gun increases suicide risk - people often do not choose another means to kill themselves.

This is evidence that in the United States - where the question of gun control is currently under debate - the gun is a risk factor for suicide.

If people in Japan had access to guns, the same finding could occur - it could be true that their suicide rate would go up with access to guns. Or maybe not. But that is entirely besides the point. In the USA, the gun is a risk factor for suicide and the "people will find another way to kill themselves" argument is contradicted by the study I cited.

 

[Hank77]

Fewer guns will equal fewer suicides in spite of the access to ropes, wire, poisons, cars, bridges, etc.

What makes you so sure about that?

 

[expos4ever]

What makes you so sure about that?

See post 192.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Guns don't make people commit suicide. Take the guns away and how do you plan on reducing access to ropes, wire, poisons, cars, bridges, etc.?

People are naturally lazy and naturally want to live. Suicidal people have the urge to die conflicting with the urge to live. The difficulty in arranging a way to die can make all the difference between life and death. There is also the fear of having a botched attempt resulting in a painful survival, which will dissuade some.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Quote of Darkhorse

That's funny - I remember news photos of the Korean store owners on their roofs with AK-47s. It very fortunate that Mr. Ha didn't have to shoot anyone, that he was able to scare them off simply by firing a handgun...but what if they had turned around and said "We can take this old guy" ? When push comes to shove (unfortunately), you need to have real power on your side, not to depend on bluffing.

Your memory vs the news story I referenced; I go with the more reliable data.


Your “what If” scenario is far reaching and I know of no rioters that would say “We can take this guy” so who is going to be the first 1-5 to die so that we can get this guy?


The bottom line is that you will defend assault weapons and AK-47s with “what if” hypotheticals and will refuse to try and reduce mass shooting killings.


I will continue to make some sort of gun control a factor in how I vote and try and convince rational people to so the same. You seem to be in favor of assault weapons that can fire up to 100 bullets per second. I will not try and change your attitude; hopefully others will think about changing gun laws to eliminate assault weapons that are used in mass killings