Gun Laws vs Death rates.

[98cwitr]

That post does not challenge my assertion.

My claim was something very specific: a gun in the home increases suicide risk. What information from your post challenges this finding?

Same could be said about knives and Tylenol. People aren't addressing the problem: Why are people willing to commit suicide. Who cares how they do it...it's not the "how;" it's the "why" that really matters.

 

[expos4ever]

When guns are outlawed.....only outlaws will have guns.

Not that simple. Many free nations worldwide outlaw guns and they have far fewer problems with "outlaws with guns".

 

[98cwitr]

Not that simple. Many free nations worldwide outlaw guns and they have far fewer problems with "outlaws with guns".

Of course they do because the focus is on the "tool of the crime" rather than the crime itself (strawman!)...but they have a statically equal or even higher (ie: Greenland has a homicide rate triple that of the US) homicide rate than the US. Please explain that to me.

 

[Yarddog]

In that context you would have to legally mandate the storage of firearms on private property, which is unconstitutional.

Please provide your unconstitutional proof for mandating a law which requires weapons to be kept out of reach of children.

 

[expos4ever]

Same could be said about knives and Tylenol.

Do you have any data to support this? I can point you to a reputable study that supports my claim.

But there is a huge difference between guns in the house and Tylenol and knives. Guns serve one purpose - to kill. These other products have well-recognized, useful functions that have nothing to do with taking lives.

This is effectively the same argument as the silly claim that since cars kill more people than guns, we should outlaw cars if we are also going to outlaw guns.

That argument is, frankly, inane, and has no place in a serious discussion about this matter.

 

[expos4ever]

Of course they do because the focus is on the "tool of the crime" rather than the crime itself (strawman!)...but they have a statically equal or even higher (ie: Greenland has a homicide rate triple that of the US) homicide rate than the US. Please explain that to me.

Let me be clear: any claim that guns cannot be a major problem because they are inanimate tools is sheer idiocy. A ten year old knows better.

Second, you are misrepresenting the facts. While some nations have a higher murder rate, when you compare apples with apples - free nation vs free nation - most have lower homicide rates than the US.

 

[98cwitr]

Please provide your unconstitutional proof for mandating a law which requires weapons to be kept out of reach of children.

4th amendment pretty much could cover that in a court of law. In order for the law ("you must have all guns secured in your home") to be enforced, the police would have to have probable cause that you have unsecured firearms in your home, and that is unobtainable without your 4th amendment rights be infringed upon. Hence that's the definition of private property; private being the key word there:

What is PRIVATE PROPERTY? definition of PRIVATE PROPERTY (Black's Law Dictionary)

 

[98cwitr]

Do you have any data to support this? I can point you to a reputable study that supports my claim.

But there is a huge difference between guns in the house and Tylenol and knives. Guns serve one purpose - to kill. These other products have well-recognized, useful functions that have nothing to do with taking lives.

This is effectively the same argument as the silly claim that since cars kill more people than guns, we should outlaw cars if we are also going to outlaw guns.

That argument is, frankly, inane, and has no place in a serious discussion about this matter.

Sure; here's some numbers for you:

Behind the Numbers — ProPublica
FastStats

Firearms only account for less than half of the tools used for suicide, so your argument only addresses the minority of tools used to commit suicide. My point is that the tool matters quite little when you look at the horrible act itself despite the tool used.

Focusing on the intended purpose of a tools' relevance in a crime is simply ignoring the crime itself. And a gun's sole purpose is not to kill. It's to send a projectile at a high rate of speed accurately to a target. That target doesn't have to be a living thing. I shoot guns all the time, but haven't killed anything since I was 17 (and squirrel and dumplings are good...just sayin).

 

[Yarddog]

BUT! I think that in any case that a child commits involuntary manslaughter with any weapon the parent(s) should be help liable.

Agreed.

Another consideration to point out is that a lot of guns are obtained via home robberies where guns are not secured in heavy safes.

Agreed and also a point which needs to be made is that is a reason that firearms in the does not deter very many home invasions. Many thieves know that a weapon is in the home and they want it. Many police officer's homes and vehicles are targeted for this reason.

No, it equates to "we keep drunk drivers off the road by making alcohol illegal."

Since the OP has never been about eliminating guns but about passing common sense guns laws which help control the illegal use of firearms or keeping them out of the hands of people who would use them improperly, your example doesn't fit.

To get rid of all the guns, you have to get rid of the gun manufacturers.

I have never advocated for the elimination of guns.

Here's my conservative libertarian answer to all of this:

Gun control is not the answer, harsher penalties for gun violence is. Stop letting violent felons out of "good behavior" in 5 years when they are sentenced to 20.

Harsher penalties doesn't answer the problem with gun deaths. Most gun deaths are suicides. Only about a 1/4 of them are homicides.

Oh, and I am also a Libertarian but not conservative politically. I am a stickler for Constitutional rights.

As Jesus said: Let your "Yes be your yes." If a judge sentences you to 20 years...you get literally 20 years.

What did he say about casting the first stone?

 

[98cwitr]

I have never advocated for the elimination of guns.

You should be. It's the only way you're going to stop gun violence.

Harsher penalties doesn't answer the problem with gun deaths. Most gun deaths are suicides. Only about a 1/4 of them are homicides.

I think you're leaving out the 73,000+ gun shootings in the US for 2014. A person attempting suicide is going to have a much higher success rate at actually killing themselves than someone "trying" to kill someone else. Wonder how many of the 73,000 were "with intent to kill":

In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 U.S. citizens), and 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S. citizens). ... In 2012, 64% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides.

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia

What did he say about casting the first stone?

Are you really going to advocate for the gun criminal here?

 

[Yarddog]

4th amendment pretty much could cover that in a court of law. In order for the law ("you must have all guns secured in your home") to be enforced, the police would have to have probable cause that you have unsecured firearms in your home, and that is unobtainable without your 4th amendment rights be infringed upon. Hence that's the definition of private property; private being the key word there:

What is PRIVATE PROPERTY? definition of PRIVATE PROPERTY (Black's Law Dictionary)

Try again. Doesn't apply. You're over reaching and trying to assume that the possibility of what may occur would make a law unconstitutional.

 

[Yarddog]

I think you're leaving out the 73,000+ gun crimes (wounded + fatalities) in the US for 2014.

I am sticking to the OP which deals with gun deaths.

 

[98cwitr]

I am sticking to the OP which deals with gun deaths.

I believe that position is very well short sighted. There are many people who attempt, and have every intent to kill another person, that is being left out of scope. I strongly feel that it is part of this conversation.

Try again. Doesn't apply. You're over reaching and trying to assume that the possibility of what may occur would make a law unconstitutional.

Directly applies actually. It's my private property and I, as a constitutionally protected citizen, have every right to exclusively oversee it as I see fit (that applies to both my home and my guns) without fear of law enforcement busting into my house. Grey areas to this include emissions testing on my vehicles, for example (which is a state law and not federal...yet). I guess I'll ask how you personally would see this hypothetical law being enacted and enforced?

 

[Yarddog]

I believe that position is very well short sighted. There are many people who attempt, and have every intent to kill another person, that is being left out of scope. I strongly feel that it is part of this conversation.

Start your own thread dealing with a broader range. There isn't enough data in to fully make a definitive answer to that.

Directly applies actually.

Nope. You are making an assumption that something would have to occur in order to make it unconstitutional. Police investigate crime all the time without violating the 4th. Remember, unreasonable is a key word in this amendment. Another key word which has been applied is "probable cause". If an investigating officer has probable cause they can search without a warrant.

 

[Hank77]

That post does not challenge my assertion.

My claim was something very specific: a gun in the home increases suicide risk. What information from your post challenges this finding?

the percentage of suicides committed with guns has fallen in recent years even as the overall number of suicides hasn't changed much.

Why hasn't it changed much because.....

"I'd like to think that it's come down because there's been a lot of public education and work in that area," Berman said. "That said, hanging deaths have increased, and we can't figure out how to engage restricted access to ropes and other forms of ligature.

Other types of suicide have increased as well such as prescription drugs, street drugs, etc. but if you don't believe that you will have to do that research yourself, I'm not going to do it again.

 

[98cwitr]

Start your own thread dealing with a broader range. There isn't enough data in to fully make a definitive answer to that.

Nope. You are making an assumption that something would have to occur in order to make it unconstitutional. Police investigate crime all the time without violating the 4th. Remember, unreasonable is a key word in this amendment. Another key word which has been applied is "probable cause". If an investigating officer has probable cause they can search without a warrant.

"You are making an assumption that something would have to occur in order to make it unconstitutional"

So do most judges and lawyers

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

According to the Supreme Court, gun safe requirements would infringe on the 2nd amendment as well.

 

[JacksBratt]

Not that simple. Many free nations worldwide outlaw guns and they have far fewer problems with "outlaws with guns".

That wasn't my point... even in your statement above. If there are any guns..... and people have them.... the people are then, by law.... outlaws.

But besides that, if someone who has no regard for the law, they will not be impeded by laws against firearms. Even if there are far fewer..... if they need them, they will get them.

 

[66/40]

When split seconds count, the cops are always just “minutes” away.

If you want gun control, I suggest getting more time at the range and learn to shoot straight. That practice usually affords one to maintain better “control” of their gun.

Gun control is for the sheep who desperatly depend on the government to save them. Uber Fail.

Luke 11:21-22 (NIV)
“When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. 22-But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up his plunder."

Luke 32:36 (NIV)
“He (Jesus) said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”

 

[Yarddog]

"You are making an assumption that something would have to occur in order to make it unconstitutional"

So do most judges and lawyers

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia



According to the Supreme Court, gun safe requirements would infringe on the 2nd amendment as well.

And yet...
SCOTUS lets San Francisco’s mandatory gun lock law stand
SCOTUS lets San Francisco's mandatory gun lock law stand

 

[98cwitr]

And yet...
SCOTUS lets San Francisco’s mandatory gun lock law stand
SCOTUS lets San Francisco's mandatory gun lock law stand

Misleading title...

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined a motion to hear an appeal in [the] case..."

It's not like they overturned it. And it's California...that decision had politics written all over it.