Let's play 10 questions about gun control/reform

[TexasBushwhacker]

I started it with my Republican friend and he was stumped with the 2nd question. The answers must all be yes or no (no buts, no "alternate facts)

1. Do guns injure and kill people?

2. Does having more guns in society increase the number of injured and dead people?

3. Are all the people injured and killed with firearms "bad guys"?

4. Do gun injuries cause a burden on our public and private health system?

5. If your teenager sneaks into your home after curfew, are you likely to injure or kill them if you don't have a firearm?

6. If you get into a heated argument with a family member or neighbor, can you impulsively cause serious injury or death if you don't own a firearm?

7. If you have a terrible, bad, awful day (week, month, year) and put yourself out of your misery in an instant, if you don't own a firearm?

8. Do we execute people in the US for simple (not aggravated) theft?

9. We don't allow people under 21 to purchase alcohol in the US. Is there a valid reason to allow people under 21 to purchase and/or possess a firearm for anything other than target practice or hunting?

Facts - Australia has had very tight controls on who can own firearms since 1999. The US owns 6 times more firearms per Capita than Australia. The murder rate per Capita in the US (by any means) is 57 times higher than Australia.

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime


10. Given these facts, would you object to a nationwide VOLUNTARY gun buyback program if the costs were offset by lower healthcare costs, and fewer cases of premature death or disability.

[EX500rider]

1. "The murder rate per Capita in the US (by any means) is 57 times higher than Australia."

Might want to check the math on that one, missing a decimal point I'd guess.
US homicide rate per 100,000 is 5
Australia's is .9
That is 5.55x
However:
Australian population density is 3 per Km2
US is 36 per Km2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[The Magistrate]

3. The Figure Appears Down the Column In the Link, Sir

Violent crime murder totals there are 229 for Australia, 12,996 for the United States.


On a per million people basis, Australia has three firearm murders, the United States 32.5.

[EX500rider]

5. Then it is incorrect.

The US homicide rate is 5 per 100,000 Vs .9 per 100,000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[The Magistrate]

7. Five Per Hundred Thousand Is Fifty Per Million, Sir

Intentional homicide and murder by gun are separate categories. Much of the world gets by on knives and clubs and good old fashioned strangulation and kicks to the head.

I have no idea what the value of the site the OP has linked to is, and have merely pointed out what figures are to be found there. For all murders, it gives a ratio close to the one your Wiki link provides, 10.3 per million (Aus) v 42 per million (US).

I am open to suggestions on how the differential between rates of murder by gun is to be explained without reference to prevalence of firearms in private hands.

[EX500rider]

21. I just pointed out the the statement was off by a factor of 10

The murder rate per Capita in the US (by any means) is 57 times higher than Australia
That is just not so.

[EX500rider]

86. "differential between rates of murder by gun is to be explained without reference to..

....prevalence of firearms in private hands."

If there was a direct correlation the US which is number one in firearms ownership would not be ranked 74th in homicides, it would be ranked #1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[dsc]

28. the density is highly misleading

since much of Australia is utterly empty meaning the parts of Australia with people is likely as dense as, or even denser than our populated areas.

[TexasBushwhacker]

41. Since the figures are per capita the density issue is moot

Are there more guns in a densely populated city compared to a rural area? Of course. But almost all of Australia's citizens live in cities along the southeastern coast.

In the US, the places with the most guns per Capita are Montana and Wyoming, with around 66% if the population owning a firearm. That isn't especially surprising when you consider that there's a lot of ranching in those states (shooting predators) as well as a lot of hunting.

But the US has more guns than people, and that's just fucking nuts. These are figures from 2017.

120 guns per 100 people (1.2 person)

Population 325Million x 1.2 = 390Million firearms

There were 126,229,000 households in 2017, so that's an average of 2.57 people per household

But only 42% of households have a firearm, so that's 136,241,868 people owning 390M firearms = 2.86 firearms per person on average. If course, when you only factor in adults, the number is even higher, and no other country even comes close.

[EX500rider]

45. Actually only 42% of households will admit to having a firearm in the house

But many many people will lie on that kind of question in a survey.
I say that number is more unknown.

[yagotme]

46. So, I guess it's really amazing, with those kinds of numbers,

that we have as few killings (outside suicides) with firearms as we do. Perhaps it's not actually the gun, but the person wielding it.

[EX500rider]

53. "parts of Australia with people is likely as dense as, or even denser than our populated areas."

Not really:
https://architectureau.com/articles/australian-cities-among-the-largest-and-least-densely-settled-in-the-world/

[AndyS]

70. Nice red herring ya' got there. nt

[The Magistrate]

2. Excellent Questions, Ma'am

Particularly No. 7, since twice as many people commit suicide by gun than are killed by gun in homicides. For reasons which escape me, the 'gunners' usually treat the toll by suicide as beside the point, and want only homicides taken into account in tallying the carnage.

[TexasBushwhacker]

9. And "bad guy kills good guy" at that

The accidental homicides and suicides just don't count to them, and how many "accidental" self inflicted gunshot deaths are in fact, suicides. I lost a 6th grader to an accidental firearm death my first year of teaching.

50.4% (2019) of all suicides in the US are by firearm. I've had 2 friends and 1 former boss shoot themselves. 1 friend left a widow and 2 children. The former boss left a widow and FIVE children.

Suffocation/hanging is 28.6% and poisoning/intentional overdose us only 12.9%. All others (cutting, falling, etc) combined make up about 8%. Why? Because nothing is as sure and fast as a gun.

https://sprc.org/scope/means-suicide

[EX500rider]

4. I doubt anyone objects to a voluntary buy back.

But to work you'd have to offer more then the gun is worth to get a lot of participation,
With 393 million +- firearms in private hands if you offered a avg of $500 ea that would be $196 billion I believe.
And you would only cut the firearm homicide rate of 12,000 killed avg per year by a unknow amount, certainly not 100%
I bet 196 billion dollars would save more lives if put towards healthcare etc.

[Amishman]

42. Buybacks are a flawed proposition no matter how they are done

Price it low and you'll get little participation, price it high and they'll sell you the worn out or poorly functioning ones and use the money to buy replacements.

Word your requirements poorly and they'll turn in homemade ones that cost almost nothing to make

[BusterMove]

6. I'd be for a voluntary buyback regardless of the answers

To the 9 questions.

As long as they’re given fair market value…why not?

Especially if they make bought-back arms available for sale to other people (who clear background checks) who want them - to offset the cost. Likely get some nice pieces!

[hunter]

25. Buy them back, melt them down, and quit selling new ones.

Gun fetishes are disgusting.

[Dial H For Hero]

26. You have to know that's never going to happen.

[former9thward]

8. The answer to #9 is yes unless you are planning on disarming our military.

And for #7 there are many, many ways people who want to kill themselves can do that (even if the question tries to get around that by saying "instantly".)

[Dial H For Hero]

12. I've never agreed with 18 to 20 year olds not having the same rights as 21 year olds.

If you're old enough to sign binding contracts and to be conscripted, you should be able to buy a drink or a handgun.

[TexasBushwhacker]

16. Well, they used to think that about drinking

and they found a big spike in the rate of alcohol related car accidents among the under 21s. That's why they changed it back from 18.

Generally, what it takes to make a good soldier upon enlistment is physical fitness and the ability to take orders. While I'm fine with young people enlisting in the military at 18, or 17 with the parent's permission, I would prefer that they not be drafted until they are 21. We haven't had a draft in almost 50 years, so the conscription issue is moot. But if we had a draft again, I'd be happy to revisit the minimum age for gun ownership, but keep in mind, I still think it's okay for younger people to target practice or hunt with adult supervision).

[AndyS]

17. I'm okay with that, Hero, on the condition that the guns be stored like the military does it.

That should go for all semi autos with removable magazines as well.

[Dial H For Hero]

20. On that point we will simply have to agree to disagree.

(It's not as you and I are going to come to a consensus on this issue....)

[The Magistrate]

14. Strictly Speaking, Sir

A soldier's weapons belong to the state, not to the individual assigned to employ them. Twenty-year old soldiers do not own the weapons issued them.

To descend for a moment into the vernacular, your objection to No. 7 is bullshit. There are many ways to kill another person without use of a firearm, and yet where firearms are readily available, killing by firearm predominates. The same applies to suicide.

I don't know if you've been in any physical altercations as an adult. It takes a great deal of emotional commitment to the deed to actually shove a knife into another human's body, or strike their skull repeatedly with a club, and it takes a great deal of bodily effort. A mere fit of momentary pique, a mere twitch of a finger, suffices with a firearm.

This applies even more to suicide. The gun is the surest and quickest method, and needs no more than a momentary resolve. Throwing oneself in front of a train or leaping from a great height or contriving a noose for your neck and a drop, all require more effort and fixity of purpose, and methods such a opening a vein or an overdose of drugs or running the car in an enclosed space are both slow and reversible if aid arrives or is summoned on second thought.

[former9thward]

24. If your read the question it says "possess" arms not just "own" them.

So following the illogic of the question those under 21 could not even touch a weapon. Maybe that is your idea of a military but its not mine. As far as the other question is concerned

The most suicidal state in the entire world is by a wide margin Greenland,[10] with Lithuania being the most suicidal country in 2019. Europe is the most suicidal region in the world, while the Eastern Mediterranean is the least.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Europe is known for its gun control but that does not stop suicide. That aside, I am in favor of adults being in control of their own bodies. For me that applies to the use of drugs, suicide, abortion among other things.

[The Magistrate]

30. Enjoy, Sir

Since the U.S. rate is a good half again higher than the European, it is hard to see what you think you are gaining.

Nor does that address the fact that the predominant method of suicide in the United States is a firearm.

Your view of suicide as a matter of personal ethics is quite beside the point at hand. I may share it, i may disagree with it, but it makes no difference to consideration of the role ready access to firearms plays in this country.

[AndyS]

10. Ya had to know the resident gunner would show up and try to make some

non-sense point.

[EX500rider]

22. You mean the "non-sense point" by pointing out the the off by 10x math?

Or the "non-sense point" of what a voluntary buy back program would cost if enough was offered to get any meaningful participation?

[AndyS]

54. Yeah, the non-sense of parcing math even though the correction doesn't negate the point being made

or make the position less valid.

Then there's the utter bullshit of cost. A one time cost of buyback and prohibiting some types of weapons would be more than offset in a few years.

OH! LOOK! RED HERRING!

[EX500rider]

56. "A one time cost of buyback"

Voluntary and low price offered= low participation

Voluntary at a high enough costs to actually get a meaningful number of firearms, say $1,000 a firearm and you're looking at $400 billion +- May seem like "utter BS of costs" to you, voters may disagree.

And the criminals/gang members who do most of the killing won't turn theirs in so the homicide rate won't budge much.
What would that same money do for healthcare and how many lives would that save?

[AndyS]

57. Hmmm, at $280 billion a year that $400 billion is paid for in less than a year and a half

and that savings accumulates every year thereafter.

I don't favor 'voluntary' buy backs. Follow Australia's example.

As far as criminals go, I'd be satisfied to be safe from Law Abiding Citizens.

Please continue gun 'splaining to the rest of us but understand that the more you prattle on the worse is case you make.

[yagotme]

60. So, you are more of a confiscationist, then.

"Buyback" is just cover?

[AndyS]

66. Fucking A yago. I'd like to confiscate every motherfucking semi auto with removeable magazines.

And I will work for that for the rest of my life and I don't give a shit if you or Hero keep spouting 'it will never happen'.

Wanna play the come and take it game? That can also be arranged.

[yagotme]

71. I'm glad that you're open to the idea that a person's property can be seized,

basically taken at gunpoint (see the problem, here?), for mere possession of physical property that has become "unlawful" to own, because somebody doesn't like it. Makes it easier for the Man to confiscate drugs, too, right? After all, a lot of drugs that are being used today have been illegal for quite some time, longer than some types of firearms/parts, so maybe the police should just stop and frisk everyone on the sidewalk, as drugs can cause a lot of hurt and death, causing a rise in health care costs. Knives have become a big problem in Britain as of late, better stay ahead of the curve and take all those, too. Let's go further, may as well get rid of cigarettes entirely. Lots of things that people shouldn't have, let's make a ban list, and keep the cops busy for awhile.

, if needed...

[yagotme]

76. I'd like to know where $300 AR's are at.

Send me a link, would you? Cheapest around here are $450+. And, out of curiosity, what about the other possibilities I brought up? Do they make sense, too?

[AndyS]

80. I live in red country and flyers from local sporting and farm/.ranch stores come to my mail box

quite often.

The other stuff is red herring and not germane.

[yagotme]

82. I get flyers, too.

Have a farm store not too far away. Haven't seen a "$300 AR" for quite some time. Like Pre-pandemic. And that was a limited time sale, not "All day, every day," as YOU claim. As far as the other "stuff", others may take the gander/goose comparison to mind.

[AndyS]

83. Well, being as you have appointed yourself the sole arbiter of AR-15 prices I guess

I absolutely must defer to your vast and immutable knowledge on such things.

Still if someone is stupid enough to pay more than the market price why should they be rewarded for being stupid?

[yagotme]

84. Snarky, snarky, snarky.

I asked you for your sources for $300 AR's, as you, the self appointed official low price arbiter of all things AR, obviously have special connections to. I have not seen them offered here for that, and all I get is a smarmy reply. Thanks.

[AndyS]

85. Oh, you are soooo welcome.

[Dial H For Hero]

90. I'm going to call your bluff, Andy. I just checked Gunbroker, and of the thousands of AR-15's

for sale there, the cheapest one in 5.56mm was $439.95. With shipping and a transfer fee, it would be around $500.

Who is selling AR-15's for only $300? I'll take a couple dozen of them.

As for not paying more than $700 for one, that's like saying that anyone who pays more than $20K for a Porsche is wasting their money. There are higher end AR's, you know....

[EX500rider]

87. "From your cold dead hands? It can be arranged." hahaha

"I am against violence and people being killed!"
Turn in your gun or we will kill you!
lol

[EX500rider]

62. Except about $214 billion of the 280 isn't paid to anybody if you read the article.

That was their "estimated" costs of pain & suffering. No actual money changed hands so no saving money there.
The only actual savings are pretty much the 3 billion in medical costs, the Police will be paid if they are on a case or not, same with the courts.

[AndyS]

67. Keep on 'splaining . . .

Pain and suffering means nothing to gunners. It does to parents.

Please proceed rider . . .

[EX500rider]

72. You can't act like 280 billion dollars will be saved

Unless $280 billion dollars is spent.
So don't act like a gun buy back that cost billions of dollars will pay for itself

[AndyS]

75. You can't act like pain and suffering is meaningless. Well I guess you can as you do it

so well.

Keep 'splainig gunner. Keep showing how absolutely heartless and uncaring you are as long as you have your fantasy of being safe because you have a gun that puts you and your family at 5x the risk of being shot.

Please proceed, rider . . .

[EX500rider]

77. Meaningless isn't the same as no money saved

You said we'd use the 280 billion dollars saved to pay for the gun buy back except most of that money isn't really saved is it.

[AndyS]

78. The pain of burying a husband, wife or child is saved.

But in gunner world those things don't exist.

But actually those dollars do exist. They exist as lost time at work, lost productivity, lost income from being unemployed and lost lives through divorce. Yes, those things do exist and they do cost society and the economy. See, no human being can go through that and resume life where it left off; going to work, putting in a full day at your best, turning out the same work product you did before and going home to a loving household. Not just for a while. Not a month or so. For the rest of a lifetime.

But none of that is important to gunners because you are in this as a high school debate exercise trying to score points. Never mind that you aren't scoring anywhere but in your own mind. That's the only place that's important to you, in your own mind.

So, once again, please proceed rider . . .

[EX500rider]

79. Actually they covered lost productivity in the figures

Maybe you should read the article

[AndyS]

81. Please proceed, rider . . . nt

[Dial H For Hero]

65. Australia's example doesn't have the slightest chance of coming to pass here.

You and I both know that. If anything changes nationwide it will be in the direction of expanded gun rights via the upcoming Supreme Court decision in a few months.

[AndyS]

68. No Hero, I don't know that. Keep dreaming that the world will turn your way forever. nt

[EX500rider]

88. Who does that remind me of....

[Dial H For Hero]

89. I'll grant you that things may well be different many decades from now, but neither you nor I

will see Australia-style confiscation in the US. If I'm wrong and it does come to pass in, let's say, the next 20 years or so, I urge you to
mock me unceasingly.

Until then, though...

[SYFROYH]

11. Voluntary buyback programs are great if you don't want to do anything about reducing gun violence.

But it will make people think you care and give you a chance to talk about other things that might be more effective.

https://journalistsresource.org/health/gun-buybacks-what-the-research-says/
Finally, a meta-analysis from August 2008 in Crime & Delinquency found no research showing “significant changes in gun-related crimes due to these programs.

They are lot like Assault Weapons Bans that way.

[EX500rider]

23. Sure because those most likely to kill someone, ie gang & drug turf war aren't turning in theirs.

[Amishman]

44. Nor are the militia types and other dangerous people

[The Magistrate]

49. Most Of Those, Sir

Are either purchased by criminal means, which could be thwarted by a fully funded and staffed agency equipped with a modern computer system, or else are stolen from persons who bought them legally. The criminal element floats atop the swell of a legal trade....

[EX500rider]

50. Unless you can get guns outlawed out right which

I doubt, the legal trade will always be there.
Also people that smuggle tons of drugs around the world will have no trouble smuggling firearms also. Mexico only has one official gun store in the capital for example.

[yagotme]

51. Guns are also stolen from police/military. n/t

[TexasBushwhacker]

13. Gun violence costs the US $280 Billion per year

You would only have to buy back a firearm once, and personally, I would rather seem them destroyed or disarmed in the case of collectibles. JMHO

https://abcnews.go.com/US/gun-violence-cost-america-280-billion-2018-report/story?id=75954550

By the way, this cost only includes the cost to survivors, medical care, first responders, ambulances, police and criminal justice services. It doesn't even begin to factor in quality of life. We're entering our second generation of young people as little as pre-schoolers having to go through active shooter drills. That is obscene.

[EX500rider]

29. "It doesn't even begin to factor in quality of life." Actually it does

214 billion of it.

[TexasBushwhacker]

38. My bad. I read the article without looking at the graphic

[AndyS]

15. Ya had to know the resident gunners would show up and try to make some

non-sense point.

[Dial H For Hero]

18. A voluntary buyback program modeled on local ones would not have a significant impact on ownership

levels. I've never seen such a program in the US that offered anywhere near market value for firearms, with the exception of broken and/or the most inexpensive of guns. Offering (for instance) only $200 for assault weapons won't persuade the vast majority of gun owners to turn in an AR-15.

Now, you could offer true market value. But bear in mind that any gun owner who wishes to sell their firearms for what they're actually worth can already do so. Heck, I just sold over a dozen of them at a recent gun auction. Unless the government would actually pay me significantly more than they're worth, what would be the point?

And if you do pay people more than their guns are worth, most will simply use the money to replace the gun and pocket the profit.

[RFCalifornia]

19. Look, I would love to get rid of all guns today

I would love to be Thanos and snap my fingers and make all guns disappear

However even if I did that, we would have guns tomorrow

It's relatively easy to make a gun, even without ghost gun parts

Worse yet, a lot of them would be done wrong, and when misfired would kill people standing by

The best we can do is TRY to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people

But there's the rub? Who's a "dangerous person?"

Certainly those with histories of violence and domestic violence

Those with psychiatric disorders

And that would cut down on the number of gun deaths

A little

Don't get me wrong, save one life, save the world

But the US is infected with a disease and that disease is guns

And we can't eradicate this virus, no matter how much we try

And part of it is that American culture is inherently violent

We are a country based on slavery, genocide and murder

It's in our DNA

[yagotme]

27. Well, let's see...

"1. Do guns injure and kill people?"
Yes. So do knives, cars, swimming pools, etc.

"2. Does having more guns in society increase the number of injured and dead people?"
Possibly yes. Have not studied overall deaths in other societies. Much research to be done to fully answer.

"3. Are all the people injured and killed with firearms "bad guys"?"
No. A lot are. Exact number unknown. See research comment above.

"4. Do gun injuries cause a burden on our public and private health system?"
Yes. So do swimming pools, cars. alcohol, and chocolate milk shakes.

"5. If your teenager sneaks into your home after curfew, are you likely to injure or kill them if you don't have a firearm?"
Yes/No. Might hit them with a bat, or a can of beans. However, I would verify before an act of violence were to commence.

"6. If you get into a heated argument with a family member or neighbor, can you impulsively cause serious injury or death if you don't own a firearm?"
Yes. I can go grab a bat as easily as I can a firearm. Or a can of beans.

"7. If you have a terrible, bad, awful day (week, month, year) and "Can You" put yourself out of your misery in an instant, if you don't own a firearm?"
Yes. I added "Can You" as I believed this is what OP was asking. Hanging is usually fairly quick, if done properly. Jumping off a tall building usually works well, also.

"8. Do we execute people in the US for simple (not aggravated) theft?"
Yes. Police make mistakes, lack of proper judgement calls. They're human. They should also pay for anything purposefully done.

"9. We don't allow people under 21 to purchase alcohol in the US. Is there a valid reason to allow people under 21 to purchase and/or possess a firearm for anything other than target practice or hunting?
Yes. Alcohol causes physiological changes to the body/brain, often times, permanently. Owning a firearm doesn't.

"10. Given these facts, would you object to a nationwide VOLUNTARY gun buyback program if the costs were offset by lower healthcare costs, and fewer cases of premature death or disability."
Yes. Paying for a "buyback" gun, and not getting to shoot it, is ridiculous. The "transfer of payment" from lower health care costs to the "buyback" is a wish. Voluntary buybacks do little for local crime, so a national would also most likely be useless, also. You would have to make the "buyback" mandatory, which, by definition, is confiscation.

I didn't go into a lot of depth on the sub explanations, as a lot have been covered upthread already. And the "Yes or No only" part is signs of a trap. Phrase the question well, and the Yes or No could mean anything...

[The Magistrate]

31. This Is Seriously Funny, Sir

I expect you image you have scored some great 'pwning', but really all you manage is to provide both humor for others and a demonstration you are not really very good at this at all.

I expect you will now begin to urge ownership of swimming pools for self defense. I can see the advertisements now....

Jesus wept.

[yagotme]

32. I see you didn't connect the questions to the answers I gave.

Question: "4. Do gun injuries cause a burden on our public and private health system?"

Answer: Yes. So do swimming pools, cars. alcohol, and chocolate milk shakes.

We're talking about injuries that cause a burden on the health system, that could have possibly been averted, not tools for self defense. Possibly you're the one that needs a little practice with reading comprehension.

I stated in my post that I didn't go into great detail with my question responses, but I guess I was mistaken in the belief that everyone would get the general drift of my answers. And, to add to your post, I guess ads for frozen milkshakes as self defense tools might get a laugh or two...

[The Magistrate]

34. There Is No Point In Treating Your Comment Seriously, Sir

The only item remotely comparable in the challenge it presents the health system is the automobile, including the truck.

Traffic fatalities are similar to firearm fatalities, and non-fatal injuries from traffic accidents may run a bit higher for the former than the latter. In terms of acceptable burden, the question then becomes what is the burden balanced against.

For better or worse, our society is largely based on motor transportation. It could not function in its present form without it.

We could do without firearms just fine.

[yagotme]

35. So, because the deaths are fewer,

but the necessity no higher, you ignore my suggestions? If you re-read my previous posts, I stated twice that I didn't go into depth of reply, as this particular topic has been beaten to death throughout time. If it saves one child, amirite? I am trying to make logical replies to your posts, but, as you say, "There Is No Point In Treating Your Comment Seriously, Sir".

BTW, in case you haven't noticed, there ARE attempts to reduce the number of automobiles in this country. I did not include it in my original post, as there is still a "need" for this type of transportation. I was listing things that "could be done without".

[The Magistrate]

37. Again, Sir, You Either Miss Or Refuse To Note The Point

Motor transport is an essential item as our society is constructed. People commute distances to work in numbers unsupportable at present except by individual transport. Very few goods do not travel a good portion of their way to market by motor vehicle. In great swathes of the country it really is not possible to function as a citizen without a motor vehicle.

Put coldly, this means the deaths and injuries attendant on motor vehicles can be considered a price necessary to pay for fundamental social arrangements, of which people approve, and on which they rely.

Deaths and injuries by firearms are in no way related to anything essential to the function of our society, and in most instance are the result of things considered destructive to society, or inimical to it.

It is not a question of numbers, but of utility. Even if deaths and injuries by motor vehicle operation dwarfed those owed to firearms, those of the first sort would remain essential to the operation of society as constituted, while those of the second sort would remain unwarranted and insupportable, because their cause is not essential to social function.

[yagotme]

39. Point noted, not missed...

Automobile deaths run between 36-39,000/yr for the last few years.
Gun deaths run around 33,000. Most are suicides.

There. We got that out of the way. Motor transport is essential. But not constitutionally listed. Firearms are. You don't "need" a car that goes over 80 mph, do you? Shouldn't we ban them? How about motorcycles? Can't carpool on a bike very well. Lotsa deaths with them. Ban motorcycles. How about semi's? Trains can move a lot more stuff cross country, and more efficiently. You just won't get it as fast as with a truck. Take a bunch of semi's off the road, making it easier/safer for the other drivers.

But, to play it back to you, you must have missed my point, as I listed "nonessential" things in my post, and didn't cover autos. Either a total miss on your part, or intentional distraction. Only you know the real answer.

[The Magistrate]

40. 'Constitutionallt Listed', Sir, Is Meaningless In Any Discussion Of Utility

Nor is it meaningful in any discussion of what might be the best course for a society to adopt.

It is beyond question that our society would greatly benefit were far fewer firearms in circulation.

You cannot point to one social gain owed to widespread possession of firearms, certainly not to anything that could be considered to remotely address the cost of their widespread possession.

Whether or not I agree with the total calculation, the essential nature of motor transport in our economic and social arrangements is undeniable.

[yagotme]

43. Meaningless as to utility,

codified by law.

[The Magistrate]

47. So, No Discernible Benefit

I'm off to cook dinner. We're having chicken thighs seethed in salsas, with Mexican rice. I learned some time ago to get it pretty much the way it comes in a restaurant. What you do is you toast the rice in a lot of oil first, till it's a golden brown, then you boil it, and use a tomato bouillon for the cooking liquid, with a bit of tomato paste. Put a smidge of diced carrot in, and it comes out pretty good.

[yagotme]

48. Enjoy!

[EX500rider]

55. "You cannot point to one social gain owed to widespread possession of firearms"

Last edited Tue Dec 7, 2021, 12:50 AM - Edit history (1)

Preventing harm and or death from criminals during home invasions or attempted rape etc by having a firearm so the criminal runs off may not seem like a social gain to you, I see it differently. Defensive use of firearms is basically a unknown number as most will go unreported.

Just in my personal experience I have had someone trying to kick in my front door at 3am, I came to the door with a firearm, held it up to the small window and they ran off.

I had a very jealous gf's ex follow me to work and run up to my car with a tire iron, I had a pistol out of my glovebox in my lap, he saw it and ran back and took off. Neither was reported to the Police and I bet most similar defensive uses of firearms are not either.

Vey much "social gain" from my perspective.

[AndyS]

59. Except for the fact that statistically you are 5x more likely to be shot

if there is a gun in the house than if not.

Not that science, math, history make a lot of differece to anti-maskers, anti-vaxxers or gunners.

[EX500rider]

61. Yes and i am 5x more likely to be in a traffic accident if I own a car..

...and 5x's more likely to drown in a pool if I own a pool I bet..

[yagotme]

63. Well, in all truth,

if there is no gun in the house at all, you won't be shot. If the bad guy brings a gun, well, the numbers go up quite a bit...

[USALiberal]

52. Nice try!! Nt

[48656c6c6f20]

33. Oh you just had to ring the dinner bell

For the cave folk?
Also you failed to list what type, exact type of weapons, the details of the ammo, and the slight difference between model this and model that.

[LiberatedUSA]

36. Do you think it...

…makes sense to want to ban a certain class of weapons for being “murder weapons”, then introducing legislation that bans those very weapons from everyone but the cops? You remember them? We spent a year protesting them for murdering people. Seems weird to protest them and then want them to have a monopoly on semi-automatic technology.

By all means, have a voluntary buyback. A mandatory one will be ignored by most, especially red states.

[hack89]

58. I love DU gun control performance art.

1 -9 perfectly reasonable questions only to go off the rails with your “solution “. The people willing to surrender their arms are not the ones you have to worry about.

Violent Criminals, crazy people and RW 2A radicals don’t care. And there are enough of them to negate the benefits of any gun buy back.

[TexasBushwhacker]

69. I realize that

I do not agree that it's hopeless. I really wish that my 2 friends and former boss didn't own a gun when they killed themselves. Could they have hung themselves or jumped off a building? If course! But nothing is as sure and quick as a gun. To top it off, more suicides are committed with firearms as people get older. For 65+, it's over 70%!

Yes, there are people who will swear on a stack of Bibles that having firearms in their home makes them safer. I'm sure the family of the 6th grade student I had back in 1981 thought so, and he shot himself in the head. 12 years old!

Contrary to those who say the US has always been violent and there's NOTHING that can be done, we have never had more than 47% of households that own firearms. Gun owners are the MINORITY! Right now it's about 42% and it's been as low as 37%. What keeps going up is the number of guns in those homes. So yes, I would like to see the number of households that have guns go down. I'd like to see the number of guns in those households to go down.

One of my roommates was even threatened today because she asked a woman without a handicap tag to move her car from a handicap space. The woman pulled out her pistol and said "Mind your own business".

[hack89]

73. A national suicide prevention campaign would save more lives and cost less

There are more effective and socially acceptable ways to reduce suicide than draconian gun control.

I would argue it does more harm than good - there are many gun owners that would also like to reduce suicides. They are potential allies that are lost with a single focus on just guns.

[madville]

64. Voluntary buyback is a pointless endeavor

It's currently not hard to sell a gun for market value to another individual, or put it on consignment with a dealer for 10-20% commission, or sell it to a licensed pawn shop for 50-60% of it's value, etc.

Criminals won't participate, especially with stolen or illegally manufactured guns.

The buyback dollar amount would dictate what people sold to the program. If it's $50-100 like some of the local buybacks I've seen, they are mostly going to get a bunch of junk. If it's say $500, then you'll get the people selling $250 guns in order to go buy a nicer $500 gun. If it's the fair market value of the individual gun, well they can pretty much get that anyway now if they don't want the gun.

What's the appeal of a voluntary buyback to the owner of a modern, functional gun to make them participate? More money than the gun is worth is the only answer I can come up with.