82 shot, 14 fatalities, over the 4th of July weekend

[*Nately120*]

(07-08-2015, 12:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The point that many gun lovers try to sweep under the rug is the large number of accidental deaths related to gun ownership.  

Guns don't really lower the crime rate but they greatly inflate the number of deaths due to accidents.  Do the chances of preventing a crime outweigh the chances of someone dying in a gun accident?

The thing with Chicago is that people see the statistics involving gun violence/death and imagine gang members terrorizing the affluent suburbs and decide the solution is to allow the suburbanites to be on equal ground automatically afforded by having guns of their own.

The fact that gang members on the south side shooting each other leads people to simply assume some nice white people in Skokie are being murdered just shows our mentality. 

Someone shot someone = I bet that guy was black and a born criminal
Someone got shot = I bet that person was a nice white guy/gal who coulda been saved by a gun

Meh, I just feel like people are whitewashing the victim stats here in order to push the "more guns equals more safety" agenda.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-08-2015, 12:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Guns don't really lower the crime rate but they greatly inflate the number of deaths due to accidents.  Do the chances of preventing a crime outweigh the chances of someone dying in a gun accident?

Up until last year, more people died from car accidents than gun accidents (and from what I read last year, they were predicting more gun deaths. I haven't checked to see if those predictions panned out). Those anti-gun people that are concerned with the number of gun accidents, are they just as concerned as car accidents? Are they clamoring for more car control laws?

[*Nately120*]

(07-08-2015, 12:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But just to show how fair and balanced I am i will point out that a large number of "gun deaths" are suicides that would have probably occurred even if there was no gun.

Actually:

according to The New England Journal of Medicine. 24% of those who made near-lethal suicide attempts decided to kill themselves less than five minutes before the attempt, and 70% made the decision within an hour of the attempt.
Impulse plays a much larger role in suicide rates than people think.  The notion that someone who wants to kill himself with a gun would seamlessly replace it with another measure isn’t entirely correct.  Methinks guns and suicide are a lot like guns and homicide:  it can occur without one, but having one makes it a lot easier.
 
Guns and Suicide in the United States
Matthew Miller, M.D., Sc.D., and David Hemenway, Ph.D.
N Engl J Med 2008; 359:989-991September 4, 2008DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp0805923
 
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923

[*Nately120*]

(07-08-2015, 12:38 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Up until last year, more people died from car accidents than gun accidents (and from what I read last year, they were predicting more gun deaths. I haven't checked to see if those predictions panned out). Those anti-gun people that are concerned with the number of gun accidents, are they just as concerned as car accidents? Are they clamoring for more car control laws?

You mean like speed limits, illegality of driving while impaired, the standardization of seat belts in cars, the creation and cost-effective innovation of air bags, seatbelt laws and so on and so forth?  To act like cars today are no safer and/or regulated than the ones Henry Ford rolled off the lines is semi-absurd.

[XenoMorph]

(07-08-2015, 12:46 PM)Nately120 Wrote: You mean like speed limits, illegality of driving while impaired, the standardization of seat belts in cars, the creation and cost-effective innovation of air bags, seatbelt laws and so on and so forth?  To act like cars today are no safer and/or regulated than the ones Henry Ford rolled off the lines is semi-absurd.

Cars are safer when you wreck them. that doesnt always help who you wreck into though.

But like a Gun in the hand of a madman. A car driven by a madman can be just as effective at killing someone.

[*Nately120*]

(07-08-2015, 12:56 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: Cars are safer when you wreck them.  that doesnt always help who you wreck into though.

But like a Gun in the hand of a madman. A car driven by a madman can be just as effective at killing someone.

So this comes down to the whole "people misuse X as well as Z so why not ban X if you plan on banning Z?"

[*PhilHos*]

(07-08-2015, 12:46 PM)Nately120 Wrote: You mean like speed limits, illegality of driving while impaired, the standardization of seat belts in cars, the creation and cost-effective innovation of air bags, seatbelt laws and so on and so forth?  To act like cars today are no safer and/or regulated than the ones Henry Ford rolled off the lines is semi-absurd.

I never said they were. But considering how many people are killed and injured by cars every year, you'd think there'd be an "anti-car lobby" or something.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-08-2015, 12:59 PM)Nately120 Wrote: So this comes down to the whole "people misuse X as well as Z so why not ban X if you plan on banning Z?"

Sure, if you're rationale for banning Z is because people die and are injured from it when people die and are injured from X, too.

[*Nately120*]

(07-08-2015, 01:03 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I never said they were. But considering how many people are killed and injured by cars every year, you'd think there'd be an "anti-car lobby" or something.

I think most people realize cars are a necessity for daily life within the USA and most of our country is designed around driving.  Plus, there are governmental and private/capitalistic interests in making cars safer.  When my ol' man was a kid cars didn't have seatbelts, when I was a kid it was just a lap belt.  I didn't have a car with airbags until I was in college and now the concept of a new car being manufactured without airbgags/seatbelts being legal is insane.

I don't know the details, but it's hard to compare guns and cars.  I've never heard anyone actually say "Why does the government make me take a test and get a license when anyone with a set of keys and access to a car can just drive illegally?"

And let's not forget there are some pretty powerful lobbyists railing against gun control, too.

[fredtoast]

The comparison of cars to guns is silly. People die from choking on food, but I don't see groups trying to outlaw food.

Cars serve a very important purpose and many people depend on them for daily use. Most guns are never used for protection. Probably less than one tenth of one percent.

But I will point out that one reason cars are required to be registered to the owners is liabililty for the damage they cause. So I don't know why gun owners are so against haveing guns registered to the owner.

[*Nately120*]

(07-08-2015, 01:04 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Sure, if you're rationale for banning Z is because people die and are injured from it when people die and are injured from X, too.

Name one thing people haven't died doing.

Eating, screwing, being on the toilet, driving, shooting, being shot, fighting, dancing, running, jumping, playing video games, doing illegal drugs, doing legal drugs, drinking water, drinking soda, smoking, blah blah blah.

You are presenting a non-argument.  It's akin to people saying "why ban machine guns when someone who wants to kill 100 people in 2 minutes would just use a rock, anyways!"  Ok, that's laying it on a bit thick, but you get the idea.

[*Nately120*]

(07-08-2015, 01:03 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I never said they were. But considering how many people are killed and injured by cars every year, you'd think there'd be an "anti-car lobby" or something.

Just like guns there are advocacy groups and lobbyists that push for higher regulations and safety standards in cars/highways/vehicle operation and there are car manufacturers that fight regulations in the same way gun manufacturers do.

Here are articles tagged featuring the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
http://www.autoblog.com/tag/nhtsa/

Here is their main site (a .gov one, no less)
http://www.nhtsa.gov/

And here is an article I quickly found that outlines the lobbyists on the other side of the coin:
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/05/07/car-companies-lobbying/

[fredtoast]

(07-08-2015, 01:04 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Sure, if you're rationale for banning Z is because people die and are injured from it when people die and are injured from X, too.

You don't understand the rationale.

The people who want to ban guns claim that the damage they cause outweighs the benefit they provide.

very, very few people are actually in favor of banning all guns.  Most people just want more strict regulation.  You know, like they do with cars.  Make all guns be registered to the owners.  Make sure people are qualified to use them before they are leaglly allowed to own one.  Stuff like that.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-08-2015, 07:40 AM)GMDino Wrote: You can't read...can you?

Law abiding or criminal more guns leads to more shooting...and causes more damage than stops more crime.

Law abiding people with guns lessens other crimes and allows police to hit the gangs hard.

[fredtoast]

(07-09-2015, 09:20 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Law abiding people with guns lessens other crimes and allows police to hit the gangs hard.

No they don't.

C'mon man.  You are really no fun anymore.

You've got to be able to do better than this. You seem distracted. Has your woman left you again?

[*bfine32*]

(07-08-2015, 01:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You don't understand the rationale.

The people who want to ban guns claim that the damage they cause outweighs the benefit they provide.

very, very few people are actually in favor of banning all guns.  Most people just want more strict regulation.  You know, like they do with cars.  Make all guns be registered to the owners.  Make sure people are qualified to use them before they are leaglly allowed to own one.  Stuff like that.

..and I think the purpose of the OP is to show "strict regulations", which Chicago has, is not working. 

When will folks understand if a criminal wants a gun they can get a gun?

[fredtoast]

(07-10-2015, 12:17 AM)bfine32 Wrote: When will folks understand if a criminal wants a gun they can get a gun?

Most people already understand this.  That is why the majority want other regulations instead of just outright bans.

The real question is when will people realize that more guns don't mean more safety?  Or more specifically more unregulated guns.

[*bfine32*]

(07-10-2015, 12:44 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Most people already understand this.  That is why the majority want other regulations instead of just outright bans.

The real question is when will people realize that more guns don't mean more safety?  Or more specifically more unregulated guns.

Accidentally forgot to quote the first half of the post. That part that asserts stricter regulations are not working.

What "other" regulations do you suggest?

I guarantee my house is safer with guns in it.  

[fredtoast]

(07-10-2015, 12:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: What "other" regulations do you suggest?

I guarantee my house is safer with guns in it.  

Register every gun to an owner.  That is the biggest one that would help the most.  Right now it is just too easy for anyone to sell a gun to anyone else.  That is why it is so easy for criminals to get guns.

The reason we require all cars to be registered to an owner is to hold people responsible for the damage they cause.

The reason it is illegal to just posses illegal drugs is because it is hard to catch people actually in the process of selling them.

BTW a gun in a house is more likely to shoot a member of that household than an intruder.  Many shootings occur during arguments when one member of a household shoots another.  And when you add in accidental shootings it is MUCH more common for a member of the household to be shot by the gun than an intruder.  

[*bfine32*]

(07-10-2015, 12:59 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The reason we require all cars to be registered to an owner is to hold people responsible for the damage they cause.

But don't we give a license to operate them to folks that are here illegally?