I have a problem lumping in sucides and accidental shootings with homicides. It's 3 separate issues with vastly different solutions required. I'm not against more gun control. It's how it is implemented and to what extent.
Civil liberties always need to be balanced against the damage caused. I would not support a full ban on guns in the United States for that very reason. However the level of carnage to American's by firearms is massive in terms of violence and the economy. I do not think that the negative externalities associated with firearms is passed onto the owner at all. I believe that owners should have to take their guns to be inspected, accounted for and permits reissued at cost every set period of time. In addition I believe that gun owners should be required to have insurance on their guns. Handguns are largely regulated but too often people want to go after AR's or other weapons that in general cause very little damage by comparison. The focus needs to be on the weapons that cause the most damage. Likewise the focus of anti-gun advocates should be on sensible and effective background checks that will allow for gun ownership and also limit the level of damage done by firearms. As far as your point about my comments that I should be limited based on the number of firearms I own....... it isn't about me personally. It is about the association of large multi firearm purchases and gun violence. Those states that have no limitations have higher gun violence. Those guns often times creep into the secondary market. While I can say "it isn't fair, I am responsible", in the larger picture it doesn't matter. I can drive well, why do I need a license?........ Yet I support having a requirement of people passing a driving test before receiving a license. Statistics are what they are......... the fact is that 40,000 American's die every year from gun violence. Now, over half of that is suicide..... but suicide success is also far higher in the US than other countries. That is a lot of people year after year........ in someone is 40 years old, 1.6 million Americans have died in their lifetime because of gun violence. We are punished for the actions of others all the time in society because it makes for a safer overall society. The question is that balance of individual freedom and the larger societal good. If we go too far one way we turn into China, if we go too far the other way we end up some lawless nation in Africa. I really enjoy my firearms and I do believe that those that oppose guns often know nothing about them and figure "They are just dangerous and stupid, get rid of them".......... but I also believe that many of my friends that are in the gun owner culture fight sensible restrictions. If we cut the amount of gun related fatalities sharply, I don't think this would be an issue. I look at some place like NY. It is harder to own guns, it requires more of those that want to own them....... but I have friends in NY that still own them and the fatality rate is FAR lower.
Why? Suicide success rates are vastly higher in the USA than other first world nations. That is largely because of the effectiveness of firearms. Why should accidental shootings not be considered? Guns are very effective at killing people and hence are very dangerous. When there is a large number of guns available, there will be an increase in death by accident. The numbers bear that out. They all are related to the easy of access to firearms. I am against the abolition of gun ownership as well........... I believe that we as gun owners should be liable for the financial cost associated with guns, we should be required to insure our guns and play a more active role through accounting for our guns and having to renew our licenses. If we do that, then those against gun ownership can shut up.... and I am confident the fatality rate would fall greatly as well. It is a win situation for everyone.
I appreciate the thoughtful response. As a libertarian-minded citizen, though, I disagree with some (not all) of your prescriptions. fair enough If we are concerned about carnage, medical errors by doctors kill 250,000 people a year (others estimate that number to be even higher at 440,000 patient fatalities a year). Gun violence pales in comparison. Shouldn't this mean we need to shift our attention to regulating and putting all these careless doctors and nurses out of business before moving down the list to career criminals and their firearms? perhaps. But gun owners should not be the ONLY ones to bear the cost of addressing those externalities, particularly if they are conscientious about their ownership. This seems like a needlessly burdensome regulatory and administrative approach to the problem of criminals and guns. On the other hand, I have no problem with requiring gun owners to report their firearms being stolen and providing the relevant info (serial numbers etc) to track those stolen firearms. Ditto with gun storage regulations (e.g., mandatory gun safes); but I would not make the gun owner completely responsible for the cost of implementation. I'd argue that some kind of voucher system (consider it an Andrew Yang "freedom dividend") toward the expense of mandatory gun safes could help defray/offset the economic burden to the law-abiding firearm owner. depends on the insurance and the cost. no problem with this or with background checks in principle. In practice background checks e.g., on private sales can cost more than the value of the actual firearm being sold. We have advanced technologically enough to be able to allow a seller the ability to perform his/her own background check for free online through some sort of state-run database--much like getting a Harvest Information Number (HIP) online for hunting migratory waterfowl. much of what you say is true, but again there are correlation/causation questions here. New York state, where I live, has incredible numbers of gun restrictions and also low gun violence rates. But are the gun violence rates the outcome of the restrictive gun laws, or years of discriminatory stop-and-frisk policies in New York City begun by Rudy Giuliani? nothing much to add here again, I think the NY example may be just a bit more complicated than you suggest. And the obvious counterexample is Chicago, which probably has THE most restrictive gun laws in the country.
It's difficult to understand why hardcore gun activists can't wrap their heads around the fact that a large percentage of liberals own firearms and have zero interest in taking a person's weapons. My dad had an assembly line of reloading presses and around 40 guns and rifles in his collection. As a kid I loved using the presses and reloaded probably thousands of rounds mainly skeet shells. My dad was extremely liberal more than myself in fact and while neither of us have the answers to the current problems with gun violence we want to talk about it and are open to sensible solutions. I personally don't have a large collection (7 handguns/ rifles) but I certainly enjoy going out and shooting with my friends. A few months back my liberal/ leftist buddies and I were out on a ranch shooting all manner of guns and rifles including the dreaded AR-15 having a blast. None of us have the solution to the current problems but again we're willing to have intelligent discussions about what has become a crisis and would support legislation that increases the safety of our country. The paranoia that the far left is going to somehow take away all the rights of gun owners is a ridiculous fantasy. There are sensible actions out there to make it at the minimum more difficult for insane people to get there hands on weapons and ammo. I don't have the answers, but I'm open to discussing solutions instead of simply hiding behind the antiquated 2nd amendment. Those in power with the ability to make real changes for the safety of our country should be just as open and stop cowering to the NRA.
Logical fallacy. We can do both, it’s not an either/or thing. Should we toss out murder laws since they aren’t completely effective? Because of irresponsible gun owners which includes criminals.... It’s one of those thing where if people just acted appropriately, we wouldn’t need this. And where are the guns from in Chicago? Out of state....
not sure that gun owners in New York state or Massachusetts would agree with you about either "paranoia" or what you label as "ridiculous fantasy." Consider the current case before the Supreme Court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_&_Pistol_Association_Inc._v._City_of_New_York That "ridiculous fantasy" was so real that the City of New York back-pedaled after being sued by NYSRPA and they basically repealed as much of their own law as they could in the hopes of "mooting" the case before it reached the Supreme Court.
From the "well...duh" files... The Accessibility of Firearms and Risk for Suicide and Homicide Victimization Among Household MembersA Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Supplement. Background: Research suggests that access to firearms in the home increases the risk for violent death. Purpose: To understand current estimates of the association between firearm availability and suicide or homicide. Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched without limitations and a gray-literature search was performed on 23 August 2013. Study Selection: All study types that assessed firearm access and outcomes between participants with and without firearm access. There were no restrictions on age, sex, or country. Data Extraction: Two authors independently extracted data into a standardized, prepiloted data extraction form. Data Synthesis: Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were calculated, although published adjusted estimates were preferentially used. Summary effects were estimated using random- and fixed-effects models. Potential methodological reasons for differences in effects through subgroup analyses were explored. Data were pooled from 16 observational studies that assessed the odds of suicide or homicide, yielding pooled ORs of 3.24 (95% CI, 2.41 to 4.40) and 2.00 (CI, 1.56 to 3.02), respectively. When only studies that used interviews to determine firearm accessibility were considered, the pooled OR for suicide was 3.14 (CI, 2.29 to 4.43). Limitations: Firearm accessibility was determined by survey interviews in most studies; misclassification of accessibility may have occurred. Heterogeneous populations of varying risks were synthesized to estimate pooled odds of death. Conclusion: Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide.
Um …. Gun violence is down as a whole. As for the drug war having an impact - agreed without question. What you are asking for , uniform laws state to state , I don't see happening. The Feds set the minimum requirements and exclusions states being free to adjust as they see fit between those requirements.
What exactly is the purpose of this law? I get why the republican + democrat louisiana states passed the abortion laws, to test this SCOTUS makeup, i'm not sure why Virginia is doing this, unless they're simply expecting scotus to wipe it and use that for campaigning?
I've said much the same thing several times over the years, and it seems to register zero with those here who are obsessed with blaming liberals for everything they perceive as "bad."
Pretty sure the guy on the far right is Spike Jones... so yeah, "gun" is kind of an instrument in his band.
States are definitely important for this. They have the right to govern their people. The fed is not the end all be all like some wish. It is a good thing there are states with strict and relaxed gun laws. People can move there if they so choose. Some of cfs should head on over to cali.
lol dumbest suggestion ever. Just move out of the country already. There are plenty of places that will do that. Go and enjoy and leave people here alone from that authoritarian fascistic bullcrap.
Congress agrees on historic deal to fund $25 million in gun violence research Federal agencies will be allotted $25M to study gun violence in a government spending deal reached by House and Senate negotiators. https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnew...un-violence-research/story?id=67762555?espv=1
