Those figures don't add up to the FBI's statistics. 8583 gun murders for 315m people is 0.367 deaths per 100,000 people. That would mean that accidental are 10 times the murder rate.

Sources:
The article is on the abuse of firearms, and is in German language only, no use to set it up in full here. I took the numbers from one of its tables.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffenmissbrauch

Average mean values like mentioned here, ignore immense local differences within especially big countries (like the US). The article says that crime rate with firearms in 2006 has been comparable to Germany in for example New Hampshire and South Dakota, while Alabama, California and Texas had 25 times as high rates as in Germany. Differences also are between rural areas, and metropoles.

The same way you license a gun owner. They fill out an application at the police department, buy a seat in an expensive speech safety class, pay a hefty fee (you know to prevent poor people from exercising their speech rights), a background check is conducted to see if they have engaged in hate speech or bullying in the past, then finally attend an interview with the local chief of police who can decide to deny the application without having to give a reason for the denial.

Simple really.

I think murder is the better statistic when discussing gun violence.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...e-data-table-8

Me not, since every murder is a crime, but not every crime is a murder.

Well abuse covers a large array of possibilities, not intent. Your Dr. using meds off label is drug abuse for instance.

One could argue that every death from traffic accidents was caused by someone abusing their vehicle. That makes 1 person out of 9000 killed by vehicular violence as compared to 1 out of say 12,000 for gun violence with 1 out of 35,000 killed on purpose. Figures rounded for clarity.

Let's face it, it's the democrats that want us to give up guns, because democrat supporters can't handle guns http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/174003/gun-violence-not-republican-problem-its-democratic-daniel-greenfield

Good luck getting the guns from those folks that you've created, and until you do don't even think about my firearms. :arrgh!:

I can understand in a way where they're coming from, I mean the last thing anyone who is terrified of the government wants to do is give information to the government. However I think that you've got to put a bit of value on the human life and so such a sacrifice is worth it.

Indeed, I've done a bit of research into what it takes to get a firearm in the US and the current system is a good start but it does need more consistency across the US so that each state has the same requirements in regards to training and responsible ownership.

Ha, now that is the truth, and oddly enough I believe me and Neal got into a conversation about this back during the Ferguson days. Fixing poverty, destroying the gangs, and improving society would go a helluva long way to help reduce crime in general, not just gun crime. However in all the years that we've existed as a society I don't think anyone has managed to come up with an idea to fix such a thing that doesn't involve upsetting a lot of people. :hmmm: It's not a very easy thing to solve, that's for certain, and I don't think I could even begin to fix it in a manner which would be acceptable to the American people.
Probably better to start with mental health care and universal firearm safety and responsible ownership first, in theory that should help shave some of the numbers, and would probably quiet all but the most fanatical of anti-gun groups whilst not depriving responsible gun owners of their right to own a firearm. Once that is fixed, then work towards fixing poverty...however the heck that can be done. :doh:

Quick question though, if I walk up to you in the street and shout 'BANG' will it punch a 7mm hole in your chest?

Long time no see August, how is life treating you?
Meanwhile...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gunfire-...ollege-campus/

I dunno maybe if you have a weak heart? (insert shrug smiley)

On the other hand if I repeatedly tell you to commit suicide will you do it?

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.s...carter_enc.htm

http://i.imgur.com/d7WY4NC.gif

I wouldn't, because I've had a brain that's been telling me to do that for over a decade and I haven't yet. But I see your point.

The thing is, what I've put forward isn't so much a scheme to gain money from gun owners, I mean for what it's worth the licence could be free, the point is to instill into gun owners a code of safe handling and responsibility.
August, you own a gun, right? More than one probably. You keep it in a safe place where only you can access it, right? You wouldn't dream of brandishing it around amongst other people like it's a toy, right? The old saying that you don't point it at anything you don't want to shoot, right?
Now, taking the most recent incident in this thread as an example, that child, whether his mind was sound or not, should not have been able to access that shotgun. That was a failing of his father, and one that mentally he will have to live with for the rest of his life, but if his father had, by law, been forced to lock the gun away safely so that his young son could not have accessed it, then the child would not have been able to use it...perhaps he would have used a knife, perhaps he would have used his fists, but he would not have used a gun.
Think, I mean this is in favour of gun enthusiasts too, if we can cut down on incidents like this happening then we can reduce the number of people calling for the repealing of the 2nd Amendment, because the rate in which such tragic incidents occur will be reduced. It might, just might, allow for some more serious conversation about the 2nd Amendment and any modifications it may need for the modern era, but that is something for another time.

I trust that you are a responsible gun owner, August, just as I trust that Rockstar is...so what is the harm in making sure that all gun owners are as responsible as you two?

While we're here, why don't we put down in this thread what we consider a responsible gun owner would have and do? Here's some thoughts of mine, feel free to add your own.

1) Keep the weapon unloaded when not in use, or in the case of a pistol, make sure that the chamber is empty.
2) If the weapon is holstered ensure that the safety is on and/or the tong in place ensuring the weapon does not fall out of the holster.
3) Weapons should be kept in a proper holster as opposed to something like a handbag.
4) Weapons should be well maintained and inspected frequently, likewise magazines (last thing you need is a busted spring).
5) Trigger discipline is paramount, do not put your finger on the trigger unless you are ready to shoot
6) Fire discipline is paramount, do not point your weapon at anything you do not wish to shoot at, if in doubt point it at the floor.
7) Weapons should be stored in a secure location accessible only by the weapon owner.

That's a start, what else should there be?

No, but I'd commit a murder in self defence.
Could repeated convincing to kill yourself be counted as assault :hmmm:

I think I can agree with this as long as no other types of firearms are further restricted. I think that there should be a bill where anybody born on or after a certain year will have to go through a background check and a firearm safety class and can be affirmed that they are responsible enough to use a firearm.

I think Ben Franklin said it best:
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

I'm not willing to give up my liberty, because people I don't even know refuse to take the necessary steps to provide for their own security and expect the government to do it for them.

And when others not giving up their liberty is a direct reduction of your security?

That argument can be used to take away all rights. Old Ben's point still stands.

Of course.


That's what I'm asking - where is the line to be drawn?

I guess that depends on the priority you place on the liberty to own firearms versus the value of the life of an American citizen. I certainly don't consider myself to have any less liberty than a US citizen, despite my nations stance on firearms. I can understand the advantage it would give for house and personal defence against criminal activity, but equally in regards to burgulary, there are other methods in which you can protect your house from them without resorting to guns.
And when it comes to personal defence against tyrannical governments...I think in this day and age that argument holds little to no water really, and I've laid out the reason why time and again so I won't go over it.

So really at the end of the day, it boils down to how much you want the gun versus how much you value human life. :hmmm:

That's the issue Oberon - you don't see yourself as having any less liberty than a US citizen. I completely agree.

However.

If I had my way and severely restricted firearm ownership there, an awful lot of people would have lost a liberty and yet remain with exactly the same amount left.

This isn't making quite as much sense as I thought it would.

Might be a very roundabout way of getting to "different strokes", but replace "strokes" with "bolt cycles" and suddenly it's a little less homespun.

I'm going to the pub.