Gun accidents? Guns are dangrous?

[eljizzle]

If I look like a stranger, it's because this is my first post in this forum.

I used to be a HARDCORE gun rights advocate. I still believe in it just as strongly now, the only difference is I just keep it to myself and don't start an instant debate when I come across someone I disagree with. While I could go on and on about why I'm "pro gun" it's all been said and no one's mind is changing anyway.

As you read this, keep in mind I'm a libertarian and this is just my opinion on the matter..

In all of the debate about this subject throughout the history of time, it is rarely if ever mentioned that the actual dangerousness of guns is IRRELEVANT. The whole point of this country is supposedly LIBERTY. Just because thousands of dumb-asses a year used a gun to kill some people....that should not impede my right to own a gun. I forget what the actual term was called because it's been a while since college, but basically the USA is supposedly about putting INDIVIDUAL rights and freedoms before that of the collective security of the nation. Think about that. How many lives would be saved by outlawing the production of tobacco? or alcohol? Bootlegging aside, this would arguably save HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF LIVES. Why won't it ever happen? Because half of you reading this, who love your smokes and booze (myself included) have the right to partake of these substances, even though as a whole, they are horrible for us. (I am aware of the other reasons such as lobbies/taxes/etc) Maybe not the best analogy, but you get my point. You can give me undeniable evidence that 10,000 lives per year would be saved by doing away with guns. That doesn't change the fact that I should be allowed to have one, 2nd amendment or not, because that's "freedom" as the founders supposedly intended it. I'm not sure if this made sense, cuz it's late, but just a different outlook...

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
anyone know how many people are killed by handguns each year in the US...not including suicides?

[/ QUOTE ]

If your going to take out suicides I suggest you also take out drug related homicides.... because the only reason those himicides happen is due to the government making drugs illegal. Legalize drugs adn those murders disappear overnight.

[BPA234]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how anyone can say that guns are not dangerous. As a matter of fact, IMO, anyone who would say that guns are not dangerous, automatically increases a guns inherent danger.

I think the numbers I listed and the other statistics that can be found on the website I linked in my other post, clearly demonstrate that guns are dangerous.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems disingenuous to include suicide (the #1 category in your stats) as part of the "guns are dangerous" argument since the point of suicide is to intentionally harm yourself. If a significant portion of the suicides were instead committed by people jumping off buildings, bridges, and other means, society would in fact be more dangerous for most people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was surprised to see that the suicide numbers were so high. But, I disagree that including the numbers are disingenuous. As a matter of fact, I believe the opposite; to not include them would be irresponsible. Further, I never quote information/statistics/facts selectively.

I agree with you that if someone wants to kill themselves, they will. But, knowing that firearms are the method of choice for so many people should be received as good information. If you have someone in your life who is depressed and threatening suicide, based on the numbers alone, removing or locking up your guns is a good idea.

[2OuterJitsu]

[ QUOTE ]
We can't have a risk-free society, and no one's arguing for one. This little game of listing all the other ways you could possibly die serves no purpose at all.

But just like we have traffic laws to try and minimize the death and injury from driving, or smoke alarm/sprinkler laws in apartment buildings, there should be laws to minimize the possible harm from guns.

Many traffic laws are just commonsense precautions, and so are many of the proposed gun laws (closing the gun show loophole, background chhecks for ex.) Yet for some reason gun owners equate them with "taking away my right to defend myself." It's not taking away your rights any more than a driver's test is taking away your right to drive.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Constitution protects my right to drive?

[andyfox]

OP posted that there were over 41,000 motor vehicle accidents and only 900 firearm accidents, questioning, therefore,whether guns were dangerous. Both cars and guns are dangerous; lots of deaths result from their use. Not everything is dangerous. Very few deaths results from the use of, for example, telephones, paperback books, or poker chips.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We can't have a risk-free society, and no one's arguing for one. This little game of listing all the other ways you could possibly die serves no purpose at all.

But just like we have traffic laws to try and minimize the death and injury from driving, or smoke alarm/sprinkler laws in apartment buildings, there should be laws to minimize the possible harm from guns.

Many traffic laws are just commonsense precautions, and so are many of the proposed gun laws (closing the gun show loophole, background chhecks for ex.) Yet for some reason gun owners equate them with "taking away my right to defend myself." It's not taking away your rights any more than a driver's test is taking away your right to drive.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Constitution protects my right to drive?

[/ QUOTE ]

See the Ninth Amendment.

[andyfox]

"if everyone carried a gun, this guy would not have been able to get off more than a few shots before he was dead himself"

If there were no guns, there would, obviously, be no gun deaths. But there are already more guns in circulation in our country than there are people, so even if there was political agreement that we would abolish guns, it wouldn't be able to be accomplished.

The othere extreme would be to require everyone to pack. Isn't this similar to the situation that obtained in the proverbial "Wild West"? Does anyone know if the view of the Wild West we have from movies is accurate? Were there places where virtually everyone carried a gun and were those places consequently more or less safe than they otherwise would have been?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
You can give me undeniable evidence that 10,000 lives per year would be saved by doing away with guns. That doesn't change the fact that I should be allowed to have one, 2nd amendment or not, because that's "freedom" as the founders supposedly intended it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Freedom does not mean everyone gets to do whatever they want with zero rules or regulations in place.

I suppose that speed limit laws are, in a way, taking away your freedom to drive as fast as you want. And drunk driving laws restrict your freedom to drink and drive if you want to. And a law requiring a license to practice medicine is taking away the freedom to practice any profession you choose without govt interference.

I have not heard anyone on this forum call for the abolition of guns (an unrealistic idea in a gun-crazy culture like America anyway). But there's a difference between commonsense regulations that aim to protect people, and taking away your rights as an American.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yet it seems that guns are not really essential to the workings of the modern world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither are cigarettes, twinkies, swimming pools, beaches (shark attack OH NOES).

[/ QUOTE ]

Each of those things has some utility outside of the ability to mortally wound. This is an important distinction between "dangerous" items and guns that shouldn't be glossed over.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
"if everyone carried a gun, this guy would not have been able to get off more than a few shots before he was dead himself"

If there were no guns, there would, obviously, be no gun deaths. But there are already more guns in circulation in our country than there are people, so even if there was political agreement that we would abolish guns, it wouldn't be able to be accomplished.

The othere extreme would be to require everyone to pack. Isn't this similar to the situation that obtained in the proverbial "Wild West"? Does anyone know if the view of the Wild West we have from movies is accurate? Were there places where virtually everyone carried a gun and were those places consequently more or less safe than they otherwise would have been?

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy ...

It isn't accurate. There have been a number of other posts in other threads that discuss this with cites.

NCAces