3 ms·

Owning a gun doesn't guarantee loss of life, and gun rights are literally part of the foundation of the U.S. There's no reason to fight it. Further, I can kill

Owning a gun doesn't guarantee loss of life, and gun rights are literally part of the foundation of the U.S. There's no reason to fight it. Further, I can kill more people with a truck than I can with a gun. People use guns because of the fear, the spot light, and the ability to target. I don't disagree people see things as common sense. I also don't disagree in having some laws governing weaponry. That doesn't mean I don't think we should be allowed to own them, nor that it isn't benificial. Honestly, I'd like research done to prove it one way or the other and be rational about it.

kennywinker 10y ago
> Owning a gun doesn't guarantee loss of life Statistically it does. I.e. this particular gun might not kill anyone, but for every 100 guns there is n deaths, so adding another gun means another fraction of a death added to that number. > gun rights are literally part of the foundation of the U.S. The interpretation of the 2nd amendment has changed radically within the past 50 years. The idea that government doesn't get to regulate even slightly the right to bear arms is a new interpretation. Free speech is literally part of the foundation of the U.S., but we mostly all agree that slander is a thing that should be illegal. Separation of church and state is part of the foundation of the U.S., but churches are tax exempt. These rules all have nuances. Why shouldn't "right to bear arms" have nuances. > Further, I can kill more people with a truck than I can with a gun Trucks are highly regulated and licensed. > Honestly, I'd like research done to prove it one way or the other and be rational about it. Well we agree there, but in my view the research that has been done has already pointed in the direction of more regulation than we have now.
- lettergram 10y ago
  I think it's a bit fallacious to say statistically it does. When you look at the numbers the number of guns doesn't really correlate to gun related fatalities.. for example the U.S. Has a ton of guns, but per capita Japan has a higher gun fatality rate (this includes suicides). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm...
  - mundo 10y ago
    huh? Per that link, the gun fatality rate in the US is about 175x that of Japan (10.54/100k vs 0.06). Are you calculating deaths-per-gun or something goofy like that?
    - lettergram 10y ago
      Sure fatalities are, but look at the guns per capita. When you actually do the math the US has significantly less gun fatalities per gun
      - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
        That's because many of those guns are smuggled into Mexico and Central America.
      - kennywinker 10y ago
        Guns per capita seems weird to me. Guns are not evenly distributed. One gun collector with 200 guns makes for a skewed representation of the prevalence of guns. I'd like to see percentage of households with one or more gun. That, to me, would be representative.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > Statistically it does. I.e. this particular gun might not kill anyone, but for every 100 guns there is n deaths, so adding another gun means another fraction of a death added to that number. That's not how causation works. If you add more guns in one culture you may get more violence because people do the same violence with more lethal weapons. If you add more guns in a different culture you may get less violence because perpetrators are less likely to initiate violence when there is a higher likelihood that their victims are armed. In a third culture there will be negligible difference because people commit the same violence whether with guns or IEDs or other weapons. And nothing exists in a vacuum. Something like mandatory firearms safety training in high schools will reduce the number of deaths without reducing the number of guns. In other words, you can determine the culture. > These rules all have nuances. Why shouldn't "right to bear arms" have nuances. The nuances that have historically made it into gun laws have no relation to reality. A law banning rifles based on cosmetic features scores political points with the gun control lobby but saves no lives. And the stated end goal of the gun control lobby is to repeal the second amendment and ban all guns, which is not a nuanced position. Also, this: http://hsgca.net/2013/10/21/illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/ http://hsgca.net/2013/10/21/illustrated-guide-to-gun-control... > Trucks are highly regulated and licensed. You can own a truck without even having a driver's license, and the regulations are unrelated to intentional use to do violence, which is covered by the general laws against murder and violence rather than anything specific to trucks.
  - kennywinker 10y ago
    If on one side you have the nra, who lobby against ANY gun regulations, such that only the most control-in-name-only "cosmetic" laws can get passed (then later repealed). And on the other side you have... idk the parents from sandy hook? Whoever this gun control lobby is i've not heard of them but i'll take your word they exist and they want no guns and no 2nd amendment. (To paint everyone who wants to have some gun control as a gun abolitionist is conpletely rediculous but... whatever). Is it possible that the right place to be lies somewhere in between? I find the American mentality is that all slopes are slippery. In Canada, where I live, we have some gun control and we have limits on free speech and it seems to be working pretty well.
madgar 10y ago
Research won't be done because over 20 years ago, Republicans made it illegal for federal taxpayer money to be used to study gun control. Very little cleanly private money exists to study the issue. Universities are tainted with public funds, NGOs are tainted as well, and so on. So what studies we do get are NRA-funded.
gnaritas 10y ago
> and gun rights are literally part of the foundation of the U.S. There's no reason to fight it. This is a horrible way of thinking. Times change, just because something made sense in the 1700's doesn't mean it makes sense today. Every generation has a right to change the laws it lives under to better reflect the reality of the world they live in, the Constitution is not a sacred text that can't be disagreed with, it's just laws, and it's changeable. There is every reason to fight that which no longer makes sense. The second amendment was written in an era where muskets were state of the art; unrestricted access to arms hasn't made sense in a hundred years.

kennywinker 10y ago

> Owning a gun doesn't guarantee loss of life Statistically it does. I.e. this particular gun might not kill anyone, but for every 100 guns there is n deaths, so adding another gun means another fraction of a death added to that number. > gun rights are literally part of the foundation of the U.S. The interpretation of the 2nd amendment has changed radically within the past 50 years. The idea that government doesn't get to regulate even slightly the right to bear arms is a new interpretation. Free speech is literally part of the foundation of the U.S., but we mostly all agree that slander is a thing that should be illegal. Separation of church and state is part of the foundation of the U.S., but churches are tax exempt. These rules all have nuances. Why shouldn't "right to bear arms" have nuances. > Further, I can kill more people with a truck than I can with a gun Trucks are highly regulated and licensed. > Honestly, I'd like research done to prove it one way or the other and be rational about it. Well we agree there, but in my view the research that has been done has already pointed in the direction of more regulation than we have now.

lettergram 10y ago
I think it's a bit fallacious to say statistically it does. When you look at the numbers the number of guns doesn't really correlate to gun related fatalities.. for example the U.S. Has a ton of guns, but per capita Japan has a higher gun fatality rate (this includes suicides). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm...
- mundo 10y ago
  huh? Per that link, the gun fatality rate in the US is about 175x that of Japan (10.54/100k vs 0.06). Are you calculating deaths-per-gun or something goofy like that?
  - lettergram 10y ago
    Sure fatalities are, but look at the guns per capita. When you actually do the math the US has significantly less gun fatalities per gun
    - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
      That's because many of those guns are smuggled into Mexico and Central America.
    - kennywinker 10y ago
      Guns per capita seems weird to me. Guns are not evenly distributed. One gun collector with 200 guns makes for a skewed representation of the prevalence of guns. I'd like to see percentage of households with one or more gun. That, to me, would be representative.
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> Statistically it does. I.e. this particular gun might not kill anyone, but for every 100 guns there is n deaths, so adding another gun means another fraction of a death added to that number. That's not how causation works. If you add more guns in one culture you may get more violence because people do the same violence with more lethal weapons. If you add more guns in a different culture you may get less violence because perpetrators are less likely to initiate violence when there is a higher likelihood that their victims are armed. In a third culture there will be negligible difference because people commit the same violence whether with guns or IEDs or other weapons. And nothing exists in a vacuum. Something like mandatory firearms safety training in high schools will reduce the number of deaths without reducing the number of guns. In other words, you can determine the culture. > These rules all have nuances. Why shouldn't "right to bear arms" have nuances. The nuances that have historically made it into gun laws have no relation to reality. A law banning rifles based on cosmetic features scores political points with the gun control lobby but saves no lives. And the stated end goal of the gun control lobby is to repeal the second amendment and ban all guns, which is not a nuanced position. Also, this: http://hsgca.net/2013/10/21/illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/ http://hsgca.net/2013/10/21/illustrated-guide-to-gun-control... > Trucks are highly regulated and licensed. You can own a truck without even having a driver's license, and the regulations are unrelated to intentional use to do violence, which is covered by the general laws against murder and violence rather than anything specific to trucks.
- kennywinker 10y ago
  If on one side you have the nra, who lobby against ANY gun regulations, such that only the most control-in-name-only "cosmetic" laws can get passed (then later repealed). And on the other side you have... idk the parents from sandy hook? Whoever this gun control lobby is i've not heard of them but i'll take your word they exist and they want no guns and no 2nd amendment. (To paint everyone who wants to have some gun control as a gun abolitionist is conpletely rediculous but... whatever). Is it possible that the right place to be lies somewhere in between? I find the American mentality is that all slopes are slippery. In Canada, where I live, we have some gun control and we have limits on free speech and it seems to be working pretty well.

madgar 10y ago

Research won't be done because over 20 years ago, Republicans made it illegal for federal taxpayer money to be used to study gun control. Very little cleanly private money exists to study the issue. Universities are tainted with public funds, NGOs are tainted as well, and so on. So what studies we do get are NRA-funded.

gnaritas 10y ago

> and gun rights are literally part of the foundation of the U.S. There's no reason to fight it. This is a horrible way of thinking. Times change, just because something made sense in the 1700's doesn't mean it makes sense today. Every generation has a right to change the laws it lives under to better reflect the reality of the world they live in, the Constitution is not a sacred text that can't be disagreed with, it's just laws, and it's changeable. There is every reason to fight that which no longer makes sense. The second amendment was written in an era where muskets were state of the art; unrestricted access to arms hasn't made sense in a hundred years.