Rest In Peace Mr. Heston.

[JMohegan]

Saying that guns kill people is like saying that chewing gum kills babies.

The analogy I would use involves cars and drivers. I know plenty of people who are fierce advocates of gun control. Yet it's remarkable how many discuss reckless or drunk drivers in semi-indulgent or even complicit or fondly humorous terms.

According to the CDC, causes of death in the U.S. in 2005 included the following.

45,343 motor vehicle accidents

789 accidental discharge of firearms
17,002 suicide by discharge of firearms
12,353 homicide by discharge of firearms
221 discharge of firearms, undetermined intent

All of which means that the chance that an average American will die in an auto accident is 1 and a half times as great as the chance that he/she will die from the discharge of firearms, and nearly 4 times as great as the chance the he/she will die from homicide involving the same.

But those are averages, and a breakdown along racial lines shows that the numbers flip for African Americans, who are nearly 1 and a half times as likely to die from the discharge of firearms as they are from an auto accident. In 2005, 54% of all firearm homicide deaths were African American, though that group makes less than 13% of the population overall.

 

[intothewoods]

There are simply so many gun control laws on the books that don't seem to be making a difference. For example, the DC handgun ban that's under review by the Supreme Court. DC isn't what I would call your safest city. The handgun ban doesn't make a dent because there are so many other seemingly insurmountable issues.

I don't believe an individual constitutional right to bear arms was ever intended by the framers. That's not an issue of what's right or wrong. It's just my understanding of the history. I think many people believe it is a constitutional right, but that's a product of later cultural developments in this country.

 

[JMohegan]

The handgun ban doesn't make a dent because there are so many other seemingly insurmountable issues.

This relates to a comment Callinectes made earlier in the thread.

The change in our culture and what we allow as acceptable behavior is why we have so much violence today. Gun control isn't going to change that.

I agree with both of you, but would add to Callinectes' comments by noting that the frustrations of poverty, joblessness, lack of potential for upward mobility, and a host of other societal factors clearly contribute to the problem.

Gun violence is ultimately a symptom, not the disease itself.

 

[00Syd]

Gun violence is ultimately a symptom, not the disease itself.

That is very true. Yet people seem content to cover up symptoms with ineffective cures instead of attempting to go to the deeper problem.

 

[naxalite0906]

According to the CDC, causes of death in the U.S. in 2005 included the following.

45,343 motor vehicle accidents

789 accidental discharge of firearms
17,002 suicide by discharge of firearms
12,353 homicide by discharge of firearms
221 discharge of firearms, undetermined intent

.

I am just curious, but surely more people own cars than guns. This would mean that the ratio would not be one to four. My maths knowledge is poor so forgive me if I am wrong, but the way I see it, there needs to be the same number of guns owned as cars for this figure to be a true representation and, like I said, my guess is there are not as many guns owned as cars in the US.

I still think your point is valid, but the figures may make it seem worse than it is.

 

[JMohegan]

I am just curious, but surely more people own cars than guns. This would mean that the ratio would not be one to four. My maths knowledge is poor so forgive me if I am wrong, but the way I see it, there needs to be the same number of guns owned as cars for this figure to be a true representation and, like I said, my guess is there are not as many guns owned as cars in the US.

I still think your point is valid, but the figures may make it seem worse than it is.

A true representation of what? That's a straight question, not a rhetorical one. What specific ratio are you looking for?

Keep in mind that owning a gun is not a prerequisite for dying by one.

Regardless of your answer to that question, I agree with you that the ratios I noted are vague averages, at best. The implicit, but relevant, points (as I see them) are: First, that post-Columbine or VA Tech fear of gun death is often disproportionate to the risk, particularly in relation to the risk of death from other causes. And second, that the risk is not borne equally across all segments of the population.

 

[JMohegan]

That is very true. Yet people seem content to cover up symptoms with ineffective cures instead of attempting to go to the deeper problem.

For this reason, many people (including myself) actually found the effusive post-Columbine outrage to be a bit disturbing.

Gun violence had been symptomatic of a plague on many communities for a long time prior, but it had to hit close to home before many suburbanites sat up and took notice.

 

[midwestyankee]

Just a few more or less random thoughts on the subject at hand, which seems to no longer be the passing of the man who played Ben Hur:

Attitudes toward gun control largely follow an urban/rural distinction. Those who live in densely populated urban areas are beset by gun-related violence while the rural population experiences almost no aggravated person-to-person violence outside of conflicts between people who know each other. Further, guns are often considered a legitimate tool of rural life whereas most city dwellers feel rightfully threatened because the vast majority of guns in urban areas are in the hands of lawless people.

Attitudes toward gun control also largely follow an income-level distinction, where those in favor of control tend toward the middle and upper range of the income spectrum. Thus attitudes that prevail at both ends of the economic spectrum tend to affect attitudes toward gun control.

As JM posted earlier, the incidence of gun violence is sharply higher among urban blacks than it is in any other demographic group. Thus attitudes about race also tend to influence attitudes on gun control.

It's hard to imagine an analogous issue that would be seen in polar opposites by the same people. Right now, I wonder how people who resent gun control might feel if the Constitution had included an article that banned the accumulation of more than 1 acre of property. This actually could have happened. Remember that the English crown got much of its power and income from owning huge tracts of real estate and by granting land ownership in the New World to favored individuals. As farming in the powerful northeastern colonies was mostly about smallish farms that could be run by a family, such a limit on land ownership could have developed some support. I just wonder sometimes how those who claim the high moral ground of the second amendment as justification for their continued desire to use firearms would feel about a constitutional right that clearly gave preference to the needs and desires of urban dwellers.

 

[naxalite0906]

A true representation of what? That's a straight question, not a rhetorical one. What specific ratio are you looking for?

Keep in mind that owning a gun is not a prerequisite for dying by one.

Regardless of your answer to that question, I agree with you that the ratios I noted are vague averages, at best. The implicit, but relevant, points (as I see them) are: First, that post-Columbine or VA Tech fear of gun death is often disproportionate to the risk, particularly in relation to the risk of death from other causes. And second, that the risk is not borne equally across all segments of the population.

My point was that yes, there are more deaths per year from cars as there are from guns, almost 4 times as many than there are from homicide using a gun. I agree there that, from those figures, cars obviously cause more deaths.

But to me, unless there are the same amount of cars owned as guns, then the figures are not as black and white as they seem, percentage wise anyway.. I was just seeing if anyone knew ownership numbers etc

 

[00Syd]

Just a few more or less random thoughts on the subject at hand, which seems to no longer be the passing of the man who played Ben Hur:

Attitudes toward gun control largely follow an urban/rural distinction. Those who live in densely populated urban areas are beset by gun-related violence while the rural population experiences almost no aggravated person-to-person violence outside of conflicts between people who know each other. Further, guns are often considered a legitimate tool of rural life whereas most city dwellers feel rightfully threatened because the vast majority of guns in urban areas are in the hands of lawless people.

Attitudes toward gun control also largely follow an income-level distinction, where those in favor of control tend toward the middle and upper range of the income spectrum. Thus attitudes that prevail at both ends of the economic spectrum tend to affect attitudes toward gun control.

As JM posted earlier, the incidence of gun violence is sharply higher among urban blacks than it is in any other demographic group. Thus attitudes about race also tend to influence attitudes on gun control.

It's hard to imagine an analogous issue that would be seen in polar opposites by the same people. Right now, I wonder how people who resent gun control might feel if the Constitution had included an article that banned the accumulation of more than 1 acre of property. This actually could have happened. Remember that the English crown got much of its power and income from owning huge tracts of real estate and by granting land ownership in the New World to favored individuals. As farming in the powerful northeastern colonies was mostly about smallish farms that could be run by a family, such a limit on land ownership could have developed some support. I just wonder sometimes how those who claim the high moral ground of the second amendment as justification for their continued desire to use firearms would feel about a constitutional right that clearly gave preference to the needs and desires of urban dwellers.

Your last paragraph is sort of what I was trying to get at earlier, though you went about it in a much better way. The writing of the constitution was not all freedom and swelling music and what not, it was a lot of politics. There were tons of things that were considered for inclusion in the constitution that today people would think is ridiculous. Its not surprising that one of those things that was very relevant at the time, but that might not hold up for later generations, would get slipped in.

I mean, look at prohibition. That was an amendment in the constitution. But people realized that it was silly, causing more problems that it solved, and so they changed it. The constitution is not some untouchable, all-knowing document.

 

[naxalite0906]

I mean, look at prohibition. That was an amendment in the constitution. But people realized that it was silly, causing more problems that it solved, and so they changed it. The constitution is not some untouchable, all-knowing document.

I would agree there too. As much as I can do when I am not an American anyway.

 

[midwestyankee]

Your last paragraph is sort of what I was trying to get at earlier, though you went about it in a much better way. The writing of the constitution was not all freedom and swelling music and what not, it was a lot of politics. There were tons of things that were considered for inclusion in the constitution that today people would think is ridiculous. Its not surprising that one of those things that was very relevant at the time, but that might not hold up for later generations, would get slipped in.

I mean, look at prohibition. That was an amendment in the constitution. But people realized that it was silly, causing more problems that it solved, and so they changed it. The constitution is not some untouchable, all-knowing document.

It's only an all-knowing document when it completely supports my favorite rights and pastimes. At least, I'd say that that is the prevailing view no matter how hard it would be to get people to admit it.

 

[WriterDom]

Good luck with amending the constitution. Sure, the nuts in NY would go for it, along with the fruits in CA. But they count as much as Idaho or Wyoming.

The democrats know that gun control is a losing issue. I expect to see Obama in a duck blind in October. Or Hillary in a deer stand if she wins.

 

[00Syd]

Well, I sure as hell don't feel like there is any need to amend the constitution. But maybe all the other nuts in NY do, who knows, its been a while since I've been home. When I get home for the summer I'll ask around, maybe call up the fruits I know in CA too, see their opinion on it.

Most people I know, who I talk to, don't want to amend the constitution, they want more effective gun control. What we've got now doesn't seem to be working out as well as it could.

 

[00Syd]

It's only an all-knowing document when it completely supports my favorite rights and pastimes. At least, I'd say that that is the prevailing view no matter how hard it would be to get people to admit it.

Word.

 

[intothewoods]

Well, I sure as hell don't feel like there is any need to amend the constitution. But maybe all the other nuts in NY do, who knows, its been a while since I've been home. When I get home for the summer I'll ask around, maybe call up the fruits I know in CA too, see their opinion on it.

Most people I know, who I talk to, don't want to amend the constitution, they want more effective gun control. What we've got now doesn't seem to be working out as well as it could.

Oh, he always talks like that. He's also fond of saying, LiberalChickA can suck my cock! It's really become almost quaint.

 

[WriterDom]

Most people I know, who I talk to, don't want to amend the constitution, they want more effective gun control. What we've got now doesn't seem to be working out as well as it could.

Oh we have a great gun control law in Georgia. The first time you commit murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, rape, aggravated child molestation, aggravated sodomy or aggravated battery, you sit in prison for at least 10 years regardless of who you are. Get out and do it again, you die in prison.

 

[00Syd]

Oh we have a great gun control law in Georgia. The first time you commit murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, rape, aggravated child molestation, aggravated sodomy or aggravated battery, you sit in prison for at least 10 years regardless of who you are. Get out and do it again, you die in prison.

What great preventative measures! Because its been proven time and time again that people don't commit violent crimes when there is the threat of jail time.

 

[WriterDom]

What great preventative measures! Because its been proven time and time again that people don't commit violent crimes when there is the threat of jail time.

Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.

Twenty percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6% of the population—New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C.—and each has (or, in the case of Detroit, had until 2001) a virtual prohibition on private handguns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control

 

[Etoile]

Ah, yeah. DC and the handgun ban. Don't get me started.

 

[00Syd]

Now, don't quote me on this because I'm not an expert or anything, but I have a hunch that the high homicide rate in DC, Chicago, Detroit, and New York might have more to do with the fact that they are all densely populated urban areas with large communities of people in poverty.

No one is saying that existing gun control laws aren't flawed, which is why I think that its not a ban we need, but better laws, and a much deeper look at the roots of the violence.

And I rarely trust wikipedia articles on hot button topics because they change so frequently, and hardly anyone who changes them is impartial.

 

[midwestyankee]

Good luck with amending the constitution. Sure, the nuts in NY would go for it, along with the fruits in CA. But they count as much as Idaho or Wyoming.

The democrats know that gun control is a losing issue. I expect to see Obama in a duck blind in October. Or Hillary in a deer stand if she wins.

Actually, I think you'd be very surprised at Obama's position on gun control. He has put some serious thought and study into the matter as a professor of constitutional law at the law school of University of Chicago. His public position is that the second amendment does provide for the individual right to bear arms and that it's not only about a regulated militia as many gun control activists believe. I'll try to find a good link for you as soon as I can.

I will not speak for Senator Clinton, mostly because I just don't know how to lie.

 

[SirQittus]

What great preventative measures! Because its been proven time and time again that people don't commit violent crimes when there is the threat of jail time.

But see isn't that the exact issue? If the threat of jail time doesn't stop someone from committing a violent crime, why would the threat of jail time stop someone from getting a gun to use in committing that violent crime? And if someone has no intention of using a gun in a violent crime, why should they be prevented (by the same threat of jail time, which ironically is a much greater threat for people not inclined to violent crime) from owning one?

 

[WriterDom]

Actually, I think you'd be very surprised at Obama's position on gun control. He has put some serious thought and study into the matter as a professor of constitutional law at the law school of University of Chicago. His public position is that the second amendment does provide for the individual right to bear arms and that it's not only about a regulated militia as many gun control activists believe. I'll try to find a good link for you as soon as I can.

I will not speak for Senator Clinton, mostly because I just don't know how to lie.

Talk is cheap. I've never seen him by any standard get higher than a F on the right to bear arms. By his voting record.

 

[midwestyankee]

Talk is cheap. I've never seen him by any standard get higher than a F on the right to bear arms. By his voting record.

I understand what you're saying. But also, it's important to know what's behind the votes. We both know that many times legislation is written in a way that's intended to benefit the clients of lobbying firms and not coincidentally, those firms rarely represent common everyday people (one can argue that that's the case with the NRA, but they also represent firearms manufacturers so it's a mixed bag).

The thing about Obama that I think a lot of people don't yet get is that he does not see the world in clear-cut black-and-white terms. He understands the tradition of private gun ownership and respects it. At the same time, in his political and legal careers he has always represented people living in densely populated cities. There is far too much unnecessary death by gunfire in the cities and he wants to find ways to reverse that trend.

But let's let him speak for himself: Obama on gun control