Guns: Opinions?

by RichieRich 138 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  EscapedLifer1

  stevenyc,

  Thanks for posting those statistics, very interesting. However, statistics can be interpreted in a variety of ways, and the if the ones running the study already have a preconceived notion then they can easily misinterpret the raw data. I'm not saying this is the case here, but notice the following (bold italics mine) wording:

  Dr. Ted Miller, National Public Services Research Institute examined the link between gun ownership rates and firearms death within Canadian provinces, the United States, England/Wales and Australia and concluded that 92% of the variance in death rates was explained by access to firearms in those areas. He suggested that a 1% increase (or decrease) in the percentage of households with guns in Canada would be associated with a 5.8% increase (or decrease) in the Canadian gun death rate

  Someone else looking at those raw figures could reach a different conclusion, or suggest that other factors are involved that aren't even taken into consideration in this set of numbers.

  For instance, it is only natural that the more guns are available, the more crimes will be committed with guns. That is simply a logical statistical conclusion, just as the more automobiles are on the road, the more automobile accidents will occur. The more construction workers there are, the more construction accidents will happen.

  So what do the statistics prove, other than the logical statistical point just noted? Anything else is a subjective interpretation of the data.

  Brandon
• 

  EvilForce

  While the murder rate without guns in the US is roughly equivalent (1.8 times) to that of Canada, the murder rate with handguns is 14.5 times the Canadian rate.
  
  So by this one is to conclude that if the USA had similar Canadian gun laws the murder rate would fall to approx. 1.8 times Canda's rate or fall about 85%. Things to ponder...
  
  Also from the CDC...
  
  ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found.
  The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000.
  The study, done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the first comprehensive international look at gun-related deaths. It was published Thursday in the International Journal of Epidemiology. Researchers said easy access to guns and society's acceptance of violence are part of the problem in the United States.
  ``If you have a country saturated with guns -- available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed -- it's not unusual guns will be used more often,'' said Rebecca Peters, a Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence. ``This has to be treated as a public health emergency.''
  
  Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05.
• 

  DannyHaszard

  NO TRESPASSING SIGNS
  Watch new special about stalkers 2/19/05
• 

  jeanniebeanz

  EF,

  Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up. lol

  However, as a doctor I would kind of have to assume that you have seen the damage that is done to people at the hands of someone with a gun? That has got to be painful to see.

  I personally do not believe that guns should be banned, but think that we should strictly enforce the existing gun laws. Sadly, some people do not engage their brains before loading their guns and some people have guns that I would not trust with the family cutlery...

  J
• 

  EvilForce

  Jeannie...
  
  Yup spend time in any ER on a weekend night....it's amazing. You could write an entire "News of the Weird" column on a given weekend.
  
  "Enforcing" existing laws is a bit like saying...let's eliminate government waste. Um....ok. Who ISN'T for that? So IMO what we have DOESN'T work. What needs to change? Set up a seperate dept. w/ seperate budget for gun control? More permits and enforement? Required saftey training?
  
  The NRA will voice that same empty argument...."Enforce existing laws first". Yet it's a bit dishonest like saying....hey eliminate government waste first then cut spending. What one person's waste is another's gold. The NRA uses this argument knowing full well what the average Joe Copper is up against on the street...it's a smokescreen, a non-starter. Make sense?
• 

  stevenyc

  I'm not suggesting the banning of guns. I think that hourse has already bolted. However, there is a direct corrolation between the amount, and ease of availablitity without training or screening, and death rate.

  I don't understand why the NRA are against strickter rules for gun application. This will work in their favour.

  If you want to go shooting for sport, fine. Its great fun and gets you intouch with nature. If you want to have a colloection of weaponry becuase of hobby, fine.

  But, would the NRA want those weapons in the hands of criminals or psycotics.

  Car accidents have been mentioned. This is a good example. Every citizen has the right to use cars. However, before you can get a car you need a licence, which you get after training and passing an exam. The car is registered to an owner and that owner has to reapply every year or two to use that car. Over the years there have been stricter rules regarding using your car. Seat belts for example. Where there is a direct corrolation between car faitalities and seat belt usage. The cars themselves have become safer to operate, and the manufacturer has to comply with those safety features before he can market that car. Which has had a dramatic effect of car fatalities.

  So, my point is there has to be a way of ensuring a safer country with gun ownership. And organizations like the NRA should be pushing for this like the car associations pushed for more automobile safety.

  For the gun lovers here, any suggestion on have to improve gun use safety and lower the national death toll related to guns without banning?

  steve
• 

  EvilForce

  Steve....the NRA uses the "slippery slope" argument EVERY time. Meaning...if you allow this law to pass....then next you'll want this law....and then that law...so we can't have that.....therefore will not support this 1st law (even if we think it's good) because we have to fight it on principle. Also, they use any law to rally the troops and send out direct mail campaigns to raise money. They will demonize any restictions and drape themselves in an American flag & hold a copy of the constitution claiming they are the little guy...the abused victim....puleeze.
• 

  RichieRich

  I don't understand why the NRA are against strickter rules for gun application. This will work in their favour.

  The NRA doesn't want the rules tampered with because they don't want the gov't to start thinking too much about guns...

  And like I've said before- I'm all for mandatory training... I think it would benefit us all, ecpecially with the facts stevenyc showed us.
• 

  heathen

  I liked the comparrison to automobiles it's kinda like saying , you could kill somebody so we will make it harder for you to get a license. Now then , if those people that were murdered by people with a gun had a gun they might still be around ..... So I expect the next statement to be how government should regulate religion because today alot of people are dying from zealots doing suicide bombings . Just where does this logic lead in the end ? YOU DO THE MATH......
• 

  EscapedLifer1

  heathen,

  I agree to a certain degree. We live in a relatively free society, and the price we pay for our greater freedoms is each person having to exercise more personal responsibility to use what they have (whether its a gun, an automobile, or a refrigerator) in a reasonable and safe way. The reason the NRA doesn't want to "go there" on any of the gun legislation is only partly because of the "slippery slope" argument as mentioned by SF. They also have a strong belief in unregulated freedom, their belief being that increased regulation is the governments attempt to control, and thereby decrease freedom.

  I personally wouldn't mind tighter restrictions on gun ownership, or registration. (The NRA stance on this though, is that if all firearms are registered with the government, if the government ever wanted to they could round up all publicly owned firearms to restrict the populace's ability to revolt. That's their fear on registration.) In Alabama, to get a motorcycle license you now have to pass a motorcycle safety course, and I wouldn't mind something similar for firearms.

  I am sure that the scene in an ER, especially an urban one, is grisly when it comes to gunshot wounds. Bullets do horrendous damage, and its sad when the innocent are the target, or just get in the way. But I personally don't think this is sufficient justification for disallowing the public to own firearms.

  Brandon