What? Violence without guns?!

[Matroshka]

Sure those are 789 people (0.0002% of the US population in 2005) that died accidentally due to firearms, but 25 times more people accidentally fell to their death. Four and a half times more people drowned and 57.5 times more people died in motor vehicle accidents. As far as accidental deaths, it is the lowest recorded cause.

All I'm saying is that, according to the data, deaths due to firearms should not be an argument for banning them.

[Dancing Mustard]

deaths due to firearms should not be an argument for banning them.

It certainly shouldn't be the main argument (and nobody here has ever, so far as I'm aware, stated anything to the contrary); but wasn't it you who chose to present a load of data on it in the first place?

At any rate, you can't deny the fact that accidental gun-death does occur, that a town's-worth of people die pointlessly from it in the USA each year, and that society would be safer without those needless deaths occurring. Sure, this 'accidental discharge' tangent is a sideshow issue to the main debate, but 'accidental deaths' represent yet another straw to pile onto the camel's back of the "Save our Guns" lobby. You don't want them, you don't need them, and you could quite easily prevent 778 deaths a year if you just ended your love affair with lethal weapons.

[The1exile]

All I'm saying is that, according to the data, deaths due to firearms should not be an argument for banning them.

"No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."
--Edmund Burke.

But honestly, I wouldn't consider nearly 800 deaths a year to be "a little" - and in any case, this is a minor side argument next to effects on homicide rates and arguments that the right to bear arms with regards to citizens militia was first introduced at a time when there were no such thing as tanks/attack helicopters to make it an obsolete gesture, instead at a time when a team of 10 yeehaws with their blunderbusses would have trouble shooting up a bar with even 3 people in it.

[Frigidus]

deaths due to firearms should not be an argument for banning them.

It certainly shouldn't be the main argument (and nobody here has ever, so far as I'm aware, stated anything to the contrary); but wasn't it you who chose to present a load of data on it in the first place?

At any rate, you can't deny the fact that accidental gun-death does occur, that a town's-worth of people die pointlessly from it in the USA each year, and that society would be safer without those needless deaths occurring. Sure, this 'accidental discharge' tangent is a sideshow issue to the main debate, but 'accidental deaths' represent yet another straw to pile onto the camel's back of the "Save our Guns" lobby. You don't want them, you don't need them, and you could quite easily prevent 778 deaths a year if you just ended your love affair with lethal weapons.

Quite, seems like we're just saying "Hey, plenty more where that came from."

[Matroshka]

What does me bringing data to the table have to do with anything?

So should we ban swimming? Or motor vehicles? Maybe somehow ban falling? I'm sure someone has choked on an apple before, should we ban apples? Some of these are greater threats than firearms and we can't just sit back and do nothing, right?

I haven't see or heard anything that would convince me to agree to removing this constitutional right.

[Frigidus]

What does me bringing data to the table have to do with anything?

So should we ban swimming? Or motor vehicles? Maybe somehow ban falling? I'm sure someone has choked on an apple before, should we ban apples? Some of these are greater threats than firearms and we can't just sit back and do nothing, right?

I haven't see or heard anything that would convince me to agree to removing this constitutional right.

Well, I believe that both of us are arguing from the standpoint of protecting innocent lives, so let's try this. Can someone find data comparing the number of times a legally bought weapon protected someone innocent from harm as opposed to killing someone innocent? It's kind of unlikely I suppose, but it would be a good way to decide which of us is correct.

[jiminski]

What does me bringing data to the table have to do with anything?

So should we ban swimming? Or motor vehicles? Maybe somehow ban falling? I'm sure someone has choked on an apple before, should we ban apples? Some of these are greater threats than firearms and we can't just sit back and do nothing, right?

I haven't see or heard anything that would convince me to agree to removing this constitutional right.

Should i treat this seriously or are you on a wind up?

not sure but anyway.

the gun is a weapon designed to kill people. Swimming on the other hand is a natural ability, the learning of which will hopefully keep you from drowning and give you a lot of excercise and enjoyment.

All the things on your list are normal activities which improve our lives and sometimes due to an accident whilst engaging in them, someone is killed.

If you are saying that killing people is a normal activity then i am not sure where to go from here.

[Matroshka]

Well, I believe that both of us are arguing from the standpoint of protecting innocent lives, so let's try this. Can someone find data comparing the number of times a legally bought weapon protected someone innocent from harm as opposed to killing someone innocent? It's kind of unlikely I suppose, but it would be a good way to decide which of us is correct.

May be here somewhere - http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

I'll search around a bit.

[Matroshka]

What does me bringing data to the table have to do with anything?

So should we ban swimming? Or motor vehicles? Maybe somehow ban falling? I'm sure someone has choked on an apple before, should we ban apples? Some of these are greater threats than firearms and we can't just sit back and do nothing, right?

I haven't see or heard anything that would convince me to agree to removing this constitutional right.

Should i treat this seriously or are you on a wind up?

not sure but anyway.

the gun is a weapon designed to kill people. Swimming on the other hand is a natural ability, the learning of which will hopefully keep you from drowning and give you a lot of excercise and enjoyment.

All the things on your list are normal activities which improve our lives and sometimes due to an accident whilst engaging in them, someone is killed.

If you are saying that killing people is a normal activity then i am not sure where to go from here.

No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that it is no where near being great enough of an issue to remove a constitutional right.

Edit:

I'm also trying to say (using my poor communication skills) that guns are not the problem. I'm sure it's been said before, but I believe banning guns to solve deaths would be like banning cars to solve speeding.

[jiminski]

let's get off this one, i have not argued this case at all and it probably lets you friggin nut cases off the hook!

go shoot some injuns ya loon!


Edit: heh! well your Swimming analogy got me going there!

i am not sure you can ban the gun in the US; you have too much love for it. I don't mean that facetiously, it is just that it is ingrained in your culture irrevocably it seems.

[b.k. barunt]

Ok, 7 pages now and no one (including myself) has touched on the main problem - penalties.
If there are stiff penalties for gun crimes, it would definitely cut down some on the number of deaths.

The Amerikan justice system is a fucking joke. You can spend longer in prison for drugs than you can for killing someone. Nothing will be done about gun crimes as long as there is no deterrent to committing them.

When i was young, i was a major problem to my parents (and others). My parents were not permissive, but they were inconsistent. If i knew that i had 9 out of 10 chances of getting punished for something, i'd go for that outside chance. This is true of the average criminal mind. What we need is a major reform of our legal system, not gun control. Without the former, you can ban all the guns and not even make a dent in the number of gun crimes.

Case in point - illegal aliens (in honor of our dear departed xtratabasco). If heavy fines were levied against those who employ the illegals, we wouldn't even need a border patrol. Arizona did it, and they have virtually no illegal aliens crossing the border there.