Gun Control thread (merged many)

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

So dead and wounded children are acceptable? They're just collateral damage? Is that it?

Are the much higher numbers associated with vehicle accidents acceptable? Are they just collateral damage? Is that it?

[VipertheSniper]

Originally Posted by August

Are the much higher numbers associated with vehicle accidents acceptable? Are they just collateral damage? Is that it?

But they are accidents and, in most cases, not deliberate acts of violence.

Edited to add: I'm not saying they are acceptable, but you're comparing apples to oranges.

[August]

Originally Posted by VipertheSniper

But they are accidents and, in most cases, not deliberate acts of violence.

Edited to add: I'm not saying they are acceptable, but you're comparing apples to oranges.

They can be any kind of fruit you want. The only thing I am comparing is the body counts. 1000 dead children in vehicle accidents seem to be far more acceptable than 10 in gun homicides.

[Betonov]

How many children are killed when someone deliberately drives a car into a school.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

Are the much higher numbers associated with vehicle accidents acceptable? Are they just collateral damage? Is that it?

No, which is why you've had the invention of driving licenses, vehicle crumple zones, speed limits, speed cameras, air bags, seat belts and breathalysers, to name a few.

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

No, which is why you've had the invention of driving licenses, vehicle crumple zones, speed limits, speed cameras, air bags, seat belts and breathalysers, to name a few.

None of which have made these children safer from traffic accidents than many other causes including accidental fatalities involving guns (Latest stats I could find was 650 vs 102 in 2011). On the other hand we have over 20,000 gun laws on the nations law books including laws against shooting children.

So to get back to your original question.

So dead and wounded children are acceptable? They're just collateral damage? Is that it?

Well? Are six hundred and fifty dead children acceptable? Just the price we should pay for our love of rapid personal transit?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

None of which have made these children safer from traffic accidents than many other causes including accidental fatalities involving guns (Latest stats I could find was 650 vs 102 in 2011). On the other hand we have over 20,000 gun laws on the nations law books including laws against shooting children.

Actually, I would argue that they have all made children safer than they would have been had they not been introduced. Furthermore the continued improvement of car safety measures mean that lives will continue to be saved in the future. Observe this graph:



Let's look at that timeline and take some events from it, from Wikipedia:

In 1968, the precursor agency to the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's first Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards took effect. These required shoulder belts for left and right front-seat vehicle occupants, side marker lights, collapsible steering columns, and other safety features. 1969 saw the addition of head restraints for front outboard passengers, addressing the problem of whiplash in rear-end collisions. These safety requirements did not apply to vehicles classified as "commercial," such as light-duty pickup trucks. Thus manufacturers did not always include such hardware in these vehicles, even though many did passenger-car duty.

In 1979 NHTSA began crash-testing popular cars and publishing the results, to inform consumers and encourage manufacturers to improve the safety of their vehicles. Initially, the US NCAP (New Car Assessment Program) crash tests examined compliance with the occupant-protection provisions of FMVSS 208. Over the subsequent years, this NHTSA program was gradually expanded in scope. In 1997, the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) was established to test new vehicles' safety performance and publish the results for vehicle shoppers' information.[43] The NHTSA crash tests are presently operated and published as the U.S. branch of the international NCAP programme.

In 1984 New York State passed the first US law requiring seat belt use in passenger cars. Seat belt laws have since been adopted by all 50 states, except for New Hampshire.[45] and NHTSA estimates increased seat belt use as a result save 10,000 per year in the USA.[

Now you can see that around those times, fatalities in automative incidents decline, they then will balance out again a little bit, but generally speaking the trend is downward. I have no doubt that it will spike up again, I believe that the current number is around 40,000 but it's not particularly likely that it will reach the heights of the 1960/70s.

So to get back to your original question.

Well? Are six hundred and fifty dead children acceptable? Just the price we should pay for our love of rapid personal transit?

Absolutely not, and that is why we continue to make cars safer, as we continue to make aircraft safer and trains safer, and every single thing else safer. The goal is to create a society where you are unable to harm someone else, but to allow individuals to place themselves in perilous situations for personal enjoyment if they wish...so long as it is not at the expense of someone else.
So let's put this way, if we are still striving, to this day to make our world safer, then what is the harm in continuing to make gun ownership safer with the introduction of licenses and mandatory training courses? You don't just get in a car and drive away, or just pick up the flight stick of an aircraft and head out, you need to get training, you need to prove that you can operate the vehicle without endangering yourself or others. Why should this not be law for firearms? Why should it not be law that you have to prove that you can operate your firearm safely and keep it safely, away from those who are not licensed to operate it?
Surely this is a better option than attempting to ban firearms outright and plunging the US into anarchy because of it.

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

So let's put this way, if we are still striving, to this day to make our world safer, then what is the harm in continuing to make gun ownership safer with the introduction of licenses and mandatory training courses? You don't just get in a car and drive away, or just pick up the flight stick of an aircraft and head out, you need to get training, you need to prove that you can operate the vehicle without endangering yourself or others. Why should this not be law for firearms? Why should it not be law that you have to prove that you can operate your firearm safely and keep it safely, away from those who are not licensed to operate it?
Surely this is a better option than attempting to ban firearms outright and plunging the US into anarchy because of it.

You're basing your argument on a false premise. I don't know about your country but over here one does not need a license, registration or training to own and operate any motor vehicle from motorcycle to tank. One only needs a license to drive on public roadways.

What you're proposing for firearms goes a step further with all that entails. How do you intend to verify that my firearms are kept what you deem safely? You going to send armed men into my home to demand that I show them the contents of my gun safe? And even if it were somehow legal to violate my right to privacy just how will they be able to tell if that's all of them and I don't have a few more stashed away where I can get to them quickly?

Finally let me offer a graphic of my own. As you can see traffic safety isn't the only thing enjoying a 50 year low.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

You're basing your argument on a false premise. I don't know about your country but over here one does not need a license, registration or training to own and operate any motor vehicle from motorcycle to tank. One only needs a license to drive on public roadways.

Very well. But the other points still stand in regards to aircraft and trains.

What you're proposing for firearms goes a step further with all that entails. How do you intend to verify that my firearms are kept what you deem safely? You going to send armed men into my home to demand that I show them the contents of my gun safe? And even if it were somehow legal to violate my right to privacy just how will they be able to tell if that's all of them and I don't have a few more stashed away where I can get to them quickly?

No need to send armed men, one gentleman with a clipboard would do the job, a bit like when some animal shelters won't let people take a dog home until they've seen that the home is an acceptable environment for the animal. Obviously you have the right to refuse the gentleman entry, but then you wouldn't get your licence.
Sure, if you want to keep some stashed away under the floorboards or whatever, that's your prerogative, but if a child finds it and shoots someone with it, you're accountable for negligent firearm ownership.

Finally let me offer a graphic of my own. As you can see traffic safety isn't the only thing enjoying a 50 year low.

Excellent news, but what's the harm in trying to get that even lower? Again, are we looking at acceptable casualties here?

Seriously though, anti-gun people are just going to use every new school shooting as a tool to beat gun owners over the head with, they will use them as a reason to ban guns completely. They're already doing it, but as more children die the call gets louder. Has there been such a vocal movement against firearms in the US in the past fifty years? I'm not aware of it. Has there been such a rapid and continual rate of school shootings in the US in the past fifty years as there has been since Columbine? Not that I'm aware of. So the drum beat is getting faster, things are coming to a head and honestly I think that some sort of license system is probably the best compromise that can be reached. Otherwise you're going to get things like another assault weapons ban, or more magazine reductions, things that will effect you more than a simple license check.
But, I guess compromise has never been a strong point in the States, so I shouldn't expect much. It does seem to be viewed in the same tone as 'surrender', so I expect that this issue will just continue on until someone does something rash and upsets the whole apple cart.

[Buddahaid]

I for one don't think the anti gun crowd will settle for anything less than an outright ban. Giving an inch will just be another feather in their caps to rally around.