Author Topic: New Zealand reforming gun laws/US gun debate after another shooting  (Read 15913 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #75 on: March 23, 2019, 08:35:28 AM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11535
  • Tommy Points: 1352
Quote


We allow firearms for 2 reasons, defense and to give us a chance to revolt if need be

You would not stand a chance against modern military and would die via drone before you had a chance to revolt. 

This is not 1776, I doubt you have the evasion skills necessary to do this or the skill.   This is a myth perpetuated by the NRA, what is scary is that some people believe this crap.    The anti-vaccers of the gun world I suppose.

You make a good point for citizens to be able to legally own anything the military does.

Constitutionally, I'm afforded to the right to raise a militia.  So it stands to reason I should also be afforded the right to raise a militia capable of defending itself.

Scary dude. Iím not sure if youíre serious or saying this tongue n cheek.



It was tongue in cheek.  I'm not advocating for being able to own a nuclear bomb, a submarine, a tank, a fighter jet, missiles, or anything of the sort. Personally, I'd rather no country have such weapons, I'm actually anti-war.

A few serious questions, though:

Why shouldn't I be able to protect myself from all potential enemies, both foreign and domestic, including my own government?

Why should I have to face 'consequences', in the form of a loss of rights, for actions that are not mine?

Fair questions.

My basic answer, for the betterment of society. Sacrifice the right to a possesion for the lives of others. 

Do you need immediate protection from enemies and your government?

Arenít we already facing consequences for the actions of others in the form of mass killing and death?

If giving up a firearm, or losing a current legal right, is too much to ask for some people then the onus is on them to find a better solution. Currently, we have a problem. One potential solution is gun reform. If that solution is too much to ask, present another. Iím all ears.


Taking my guns away doesn't make society any better, nor safer.

Sounds selfish. Present a solution.
 


If expecting to be able to defend my right to life makes me selfish, than go ahead and call me selfish. I'd say you're dumb for being willing to give up your rights, but I'm sure you care about that about as much as I care that you think I'm selfish.

You seem ill informed about what a right actually is, and why it is important to preserve rights even in the face of those that foolishly wish to strip them from you. There's probably never going to be much agreement between us in that regard.

From my perspective, I'm the one here trying to preserve society from those like yourself that wish to do harm to our society by taking away the natural rights of people.

You keep telling me I need to present a solution, but you presenting bad solutions doesn't put any greater onus on me to provide good solutions. With that said, I won't disagree that the US could benefit from tighter regulations on buying and owning guns/ammo. I thought the background check bill the House recently passed was a good piece of legislation. I'd be okay with a national registry, mandatory safety courses, and requirements for keeping your guns secured from getting into the hands of others. These are all things that have been discussed here before. But eventually some blow hard always comes along and tries to argue we should take away all guns, and I'm forced to point out how dumb that is.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #76 on: March 23, 2019, 08:37:52 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22177
  • Tommy Points: 1058
Quote
You can hunt more effectively with a bow or crossbow than you can with a gun if you know what you are doing

This is an absurd comment.  In every case a gun is better and what killed all the buffalo's it was not bow and arrows or crossbow.   Quit, watching Walking Dead, look at history, guns quickly ended crossbows and bows.   Most people lack skill with these weapons, and skill takes years to hone, with a gun you can be reasonably proficient in a month.   It takes years to be a good archer.    I was county champ for years in a row  and generally I can get all my arrows when I shoot in the gold ring.   And I will be the first to tell you, that a gun is still better and I can get more with gun than with a bow.  I also do not need a tree blind with a gun, but do with a bow,  so how is that more effective?

I think we are on the same side of this issue.   But statements like the above don't help us.
There are all sorts of articles on the greater effectiveness of the bow as opposed to a gun, at least with respect to deer hunting, which is what most people do for hunting.   Here is one, for example, https://www.wideopenspaces.com/bows-superior-deer-hunting-weapon/  It isn't some hair brained statement.  I've talked to many that hunt with bow rifles and bows, and they most of the time get a larger take with the bow.  Now maybe some of that is the longer season with less people, but one rifle shot clears an area for miles (even if it isn't your rifle shot).  That can destroy your hunting season.  That just doesn't happen with a bow.
Historical Draft - Portland Trailblazers
PG - Magic Johnson, Tony Parker
SG - Clyde Drexler, Dennis Johnson, Alvin Robertson
SF - James Worthy, Alex English
PF - Charles Barkley, Ben Wallace
C - Moses Malone, George Mikan, Brad Daugherty

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #77 on: March 23, 2019, 09:25:40 AM »

Offline mobilija

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 500
  • Tommy Points: 134
Quote


We allow firearms for 2 reasons, defense and to give us a chance to revolt if need be

You would not stand a chance against modern military and would die via drone before you had a chance to revolt. 

This is not 1776, I doubt you have the evasion skills necessary to do this or the skill.   This is a myth perpetuated by the NRA, what is scary is that some people believe this crap.    The anti-vaccers of the gun world I suppose.

You make a good point for citizens to be able to legally own anything the military does.

Constitutionally, I'm afforded to the right to raise a militia.  So it stands to reason I should also be afforded the right to raise a militia capable of defending itself.

Scary dude. Iím not sure if youíre serious or saying this tongue n cheek.



It was tongue in cheek.  I'm not advocating for being able to own a nuclear bomb, a submarine, a tank, a fighter jet, missiles, or anything of the sort. Personally, I'd rather no country have such weapons, I'm actually anti-war.

A few serious questions, though:

Why shouldn't I be able to protect myself from all potential enemies, both foreign and domestic, including my own government?

Why should I have to face 'consequences', in the form of a loss of rights, for actions that are not mine?

Fair questions.

My basic answer, for the betterment of society. Sacrifice the right to a possesion for the lives of others. 

Do you need immediate protection from enemies and your government?

Arenít we already facing consequences for the actions of others in the form of mass killing and death?

If giving up a firearm, or losing a current legal right, is too much to ask for some people then the onus is on them to find a better solution. Currently, we have a problem. One potential solution is gun reform. If that solution is too much to ask, present another. Iím all ears.


Taking my guns away doesn't make society any better, nor safer.

Sounds selfish. Present a solution.
 


If expecting to be able to defend my right to life makes me selfish, than go ahead and call me selfish. I'd say you're dumb for being willing to give up your rights, but I'm sure you care about that about as much as I care that you think I'm selfish.

You seem ill informed about what a right actually is, and why it is important to preserve rights even in the face of those that foolishly wish to strip them from you. There's probably never going to be much agreement between us in that regard.

From my perspective, I'm the one here trying to preserve society from those like yourself that wish to do harm to our society by taking away the natural rights of people.

You keep telling me I need to present a solution, but you presenting bad solutions doesn't put any greater onus on me to provide good solutions. With that said, I won't disagree that the US could benefit from tighter regulations on buying and owning guns/ammo. I thought the background check bill the House recently passed was a good piece of legislation. I'd be okay with a national registry, mandatory safety courses, and requirements for keeping your guns secured from getting into the hands of others. These are all things that have been discussed here before. But eventually some blow hard always comes along and tries to argue we should take away all guns, and I'm forced to point out how dumb that is.

Iíve actually stated several times that Iím not necessarily in favor of a total ban of all guns. I see that idea as a nice ideal but ultimately impossible. I think there has been many level headed ideas put forward for some sort of gun control but itís largely not happening for political reasons. Itís a shame, it disgusts me and itís why I started this thread. Iíd like to see something happen to help this nation out of its living in fear funk. Youíre solution seems to be ďmake them fear meĒ. Itís not working, death tolls are going up.

Yup, youíre correct. We clearly have different ideas of what a right is. Owning a gun is a legal right in this country. Itís not a human right. Itís not like breathing or having clean water. Protecting your right to live doesnít necessitate gun ownership.

I donít buy the Cold War argument that more guns makes us safer. Simple logic tells me, more people w guns regardless of their intentions leads to more people getting shot. But Iím willing to listen to why that logic is wrong, other than just bc you say so.

Iíll freely admit Iím largely uninformed and actively participating in this thread has helped to some degree. But I guess itís time to look for actual facts and learn. The ďyour opinion vs my opinionĒ debate only gets us so far.



Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #78 on: March 23, 2019, 09:38:33 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 39152
  • Tommy Points: -27342
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
I donít buy the Cold War argument that more guns makes us safer. Simple logic tells me, more people w guns regardless of their intentions leads to more people getting shot. But Iím willing to listen to why that logic is wrong, other than just bc you say so.

Not always. For instance, Switzerland has very high gun ownership (due to mandatory military service), but low gun violence.

Iím not sure why. Culture? Better mental health? More respect for guns? Fewer gangs? Better enforcement?

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #79 on: March 23, 2019, 10:20:08 AM »

Offline chicagoceltic

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 688
  • Tommy Points: 144
Quote
I donít buy the Cold War argument that more guns makes us safer. Simple logic tells me, more people w guns regardless of their intentions leads to more people getting shot. But Iím willing to listen to why that logic is wrong, other than just bc you say so.

Not always. For instance, Switzerland has very high gun ownership (due to mandatory military service), but low gun violence.

Iím not sure why. Culture? Better mental health? More respect for guns? Fewer gangs? Better enforcement?
Roy, I think you nailed it on a number of points but culture is #1 in my opinion.  America has a gun culture and a violence/gun violence culture.  We LOVE guns.  The bigger, badder, louder, faster the better.  We LOVE to blow things up.  I know people from many other countries and from my conversations it comes across as though our gun culture is like nowhere else.  For us guns are a toy.  For most other countries guns are a tool.

As an example, a year or so ago a friend of mine when with his fiancť to visit her family in Poland.  When he returned I asked him about his trip and what the highlight was.  I thought it would be some building, a piece of history, food, culture, something like that.  He then excitedly told me about a gun range he went to.  There were guns of all sorts on the wall and you could buy whatever amount of bullets you wanted to any of the guns.  He spent an hour or so there and fired off a full magazine for every gun.  He loved firing the "street sweeper".  At the end he spent several hundreds of dollars.  When he finished he was talking to the owner who was stunned by how much time and money he spent.  Normally people would come in, pick out a couple of guns and buy a few rounds to test the guns.  For my friend it was a playground with a bunch of toys and for the locals it was a range to test some tools.  Different country, different culture.
Pub Draft

Sam N Ella's

At the Bar: The Most Interesting Man in the World
At the Door:  Hugh Hefner
On Stage:  O.A.R., Louis C.K., EDGAR! Special Drinks:  Irish Car Bomb, Martinis On Tap: Lite, Beamish, 3 Floyds Seasonal, Chimay Grand Reserve, Spotted Cow

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #80 on: March 23, 2019, 12:59:50 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37995
  • Tommy Points: 6188
Quote


We allow firearms for 2 reasons, defense and to give us a chance to revolt if need be

You would not stand a chance against modern military and would die via drone before you had a chance to revolt. 

This is not 1776, I doubt you have the evasion skills necessary to do this or the skill.   This is a myth perpetuated by the NRA, what is scary is that some people believe this crap.    The anti-vaccers of the gun world I suppose.

You make a good point for citizens to be able to legally own anything the military does.

Constitutionally, I'm afforded to the right to raise a militia.  So it stands to reason I should also be afforded the right to raise a militia capable of defending itself.

Scary dude. Iím not sure if youíre serious or saying this tongue n cheek.



It was tongue in cheek.  I'm not advocating for being able to own a nuclear bomb, a submarine, a tank, a fighter jet, missiles, or anything of the sort. Personally, I'd rather no country have such weapons, I'm actually anti-war.

A few serious questions, though:

Why shouldn't I be able to protect myself from all potential enemies, both foreign and domestic, including my own government?

Why should I have to face 'consequences', in the form of a loss of rights, for actions that are not mine?

Fair questions.

My basic answer, for the betterment of society. Sacrifice the right to a possesion for the lives of others. 

Do you need immediate protection from enemies and your government?

Arenít we already facing consequences for the actions of others in the form of mass killing and death?

If giving up a firearm, or losing a current legal right, is too much to ask for some people then the onus is on them to find a better solution. Currently, we have a problem. One potential solution is gun reform. If that solution is too much to ask, present another. Iím all ears.


Taking my guns away doesn't make society any better, nor safer.

Sounds selfish. Present a solution.
 


If expecting to be able to defend my right to life makes me selfish, than go ahead and call me selfish. I'd say you're dumb for being willing to give up your rights, but I'm sure you care about that about as much as I care that you think I'm selfish.

You seem ill informed about what a right actually is, and why it is important to preserve rights even in the face of those that foolishly wish to strip them from you. There's probably never going to be much agreement between us in that regard.

From my perspective, I'm the one here trying to preserve society from those like yourself that wish to do harm to our society by taking away the natural rights of people.

You keep telling me I need to present a solution, but you presenting bad solutions doesn't put any greater onus on me to provide good solutions. With that said, I won't disagree that the US could benefit from tighter regulations on buying and owning guns/ammo. I thought the background check bill the House recently passed was a good piece of legislation. I'd be okay with a national registry, mandatory safety courses, and requirements for keeping your guns secured from getting into the hands of others. These are all things that have been discussed here before. But eventually some blow hard always comes along and tries to argue we should take away all guns, and I'm forced to point out how dumb that is.
The right to protect yourself is a right. To do so with a gun is not. Only a very generous interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has allowed that, IMO.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #81 on: March 23, 2019, 01:55:23 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37995
  • Tommy Points: 6188
Wonder what people think of this:

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/03/22/health/gun-deaths-school-age-children-trnd/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

Quote
(CNN) ó Gun deaths of school-age children in the United States have increased at an alarming rate, with 38,942 fatalities among 5- to 18-year-olds from 1999 to 2017, according to a new study by Florida Atlantic University's Schmidt College of Medicine.

Indeed, spikes in gun deaths over the past decade amount to epidemics, researchers said.

"It is sobering that in 2017, there were 144 police officers who died in the line of duty and about 1,000 active duty military throughout the world who died, whereas 2,462 school-age children were killed by firearms," said Dr. Charles Hennekens, the study's senior author and an academic adviser at the medical college.

The study, to be published in the American Journal of Medicine, found that children are being gunned down in staggering numbers, with the death rate six to nine times higher than other developed nations.

The gun deaths included 6,464 children between the ages of 5 and 14 years old (an average of 340 deaths per year), and 32,478 deaths in children between 15 and 18 years old (an average of 2,050 deaths per year), according to the study.

Of the deaths, 86% involved boys, the study found. Black children accounted for 41% of those killed, though in recent years they've comprised just 14% of the US population, US census data show.

"Among blacks, the annual average percent change of 9.5% for firearm-related mortality among 5 to 14-year-olds from 2013 to 2017 exceeded the 7.8% for overall deaths among 15 to 24-year-olds during the early years of the human immunodeficiency virus epidemic from 1987 to 1995," the study said.

The research should have public policy implications, Hennekens said.
"We need more analytic studies on this, but in the meanwhile, we believe that trying to combat the epidemic of homicide due to firearms without addressing firearms is like combating the epidemic of lung cancer due to cigarettes without combating cigarettes," he said. "To me, it's tragic that this is going on."

Racial inequities have emerged, study finds
Black children between 5 and 14 years old began to experience statistically significant increases in gun deaths in 2013, the study found. And from 2013 to 2017, racial inequalities in firearm deaths between blacks and whites jumped significantly.
The study found these listed causes of death among the children: 61% from assault; 32% from suicide; 5% accidental; and 2% undetermined.

In the 5-to-14-year-old age group, accidents accounted for 12.8% of cases (830 deaths); suicide, 29.6% cases (1,912 deaths); assault, 54.8% cases (3,545 deaths); and undetermined, 2.7% (177 deaths), according to the study.

For those 15 to 18 years old, the cause of death was listed as accidental in 3.5% of cases (1,121 deaths); suicide, 32.9% (10,688 deaths); assault, 62.3% (20,247 deaths); and undetermined, 1.3% (422 deaths).

The study used data from the Multiple Cause of Death files of the US National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).
The researchers found statistically significant increases in gun deaths beginning in 2009, with what they termed an epidemic among 5- to 14-year-olds. A second epidemic, beginning in 2014, involved those in the 15-to-18-year-old age group.

The epidemics continued through 2017, the most recent year of available US mortality data.

The study said the epidemic poses clinical, public health and policy challenges. It singled out the 1996 Dickey Amendment as a major factor prohibiting analytic studies on the issue.

In 1996, Congress removed $2.6 million -- the amount the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spent on gun research the year prior -- from the CDC's budget and passed the so-called Dickey Amendment, named after late Republican Rep. Jay Dickey of Arkansas. Critics said the amendment ultimately led to the CDC halting gun violence research.

A study last year in the New England Journal of Medicine found that death by gunshot was the second-highest cause of death in the United States in 2016 among children and adolescents, ages 1 to 19.
The United States led the world in 2016 in the rate of firearm deaths in youth among countries with available data. The rate in the US was 36.5 times higher than in a dozen comparable high-income countries around the world; the rate of firearm deaths was five times as high compared with a sampling of low- to middle-income countries.


Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #82 on: March 23, 2019, 02:03:27 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37995
  • Tommy Points: 6188
Also, a girl who was a survivor of Parkland, who was diagnosed with post traumatic stress syndrome and "Survivor's Guilt" committed suicide because of the shooting.

Not only are our children living with the stress of possibly being killed by guns in safe places, having to live with the trauma of more and more mass killings but also have to try to live through something like this after it happens. And this shows not all kids are strong enough to do it.

If it a choice between the youth of America and the guns of America I make the choice for the future of our youth. Get rid of the guns (I know. Not gonna happen.)

https://www.foxnews.com/us/student-who-survived-parkland-school-shooting-dies-in-suicide-report

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #83 on: March 23, 2019, 02:29:41 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11535
  • Tommy Points: 1352
Quote


We allow firearms for 2 reasons, defense and to give us a chance to revolt if need be

You would not stand a chance against modern military and would die via drone before you had a chance to revolt. 

This is not 1776, I doubt you have the evasion skills necessary to do this or the skill.   This is a myth perpetuated by the NRA, what is scary is that some people believe this crap.    The anti-vaccers of the gun world I suppose.

You make a good point for citizens to be able to legally own anything the military does.

Constitutionally, I'm afforded to the right to raise a militia.  So it stands to reason I should also be afforded the right to raise a militia capable of defending itself.

Scary dude. Iím not sure if youíre serious or saying this tongue n cheek.



It was tongue in cheek.  I'm not advocating for being able to own a nuclear bomb, a submarine, a tank, a fighter jet, missiles, or anything of the sort. Personally, I'd rather no country have such weapons, I'm actually anti-war.

A few serious questions, though:

Why shouldn't I be able to protect myself from all potential enemies, both foreign and domestic, including my own government?

Why should I have to face 'consequences', in the form of a loss of rights, for actions that are not mine?

Fair questions.

My basic answer, for the betterment of society. Sacrifice the right to a possesion for the lives of others. 

Do you need immediate protection from enemies and your government?

Arenít we already facing consequences for the actions of others in the form of mass killing and death?

If giving up a firearm, or losing a current legal right, is too much to ask for some people then the onus is on them to find a better solution. Currently, we have a problem. One potential solution is gun reform. If that solution is too much to ask, present another. Iím all ears.


Taking my guns away doesn't make society any better, nor safer.

Sounds selfish. Present a solution.
 


If expecting to be able to defend my right to life makes me selfish, than go ahead and call me selfish. I'd say you're dumb for being willing to give up your rights, but I'm sure you care about that about as much as I care that you think I'm selfish.

You seem ill informed about what a right actually is, and why it is important to preserve rights even in the face of those that foolishly wish to strip them from you. There's probably never going to be much agreement between us in that regard.

From my perspective, I'm the one here trying to preserve society from those like yourself that wish to do harm to our society by taking away the natural rights of people.

You keep telling me I need to present a solution, but you presenting bad solutions doesn't put any greater onus on me to provide good solutions. With that said, I won't disagree that the US could benefit from tighter regulations on buying and owning guns/ammo. I thought the background check bill the House recently passed was a good piece of legislation. I'd be okay with a national registry, mandatory safety courses, and requirements for keeping your guns secured from getting into the hands of others. These are all things that have been discussed here before. But eventually some blow hard always comes along and tries to argue we should take away all guns, and I'm forced to point out how dumb that is.
The right to protect yourself is a right. To do so with a gun is not. Only a very generous interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has allowed that, IMO.

Well, I'd pose you and the others that have reached this conclusion are bad at interpreting things.

But it doesn't matter, the 2nd isn't going to be repealed. I probably just need to learn to not concern myself with such nonsensical talk, and only concern myself with discussions that will actually be productive. 

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #84 on: March 23, 2019, 02:51:24 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 39152
  • Tommy Points: -27342
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Wonder what people think of this:

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/03/22/health/gun-deaths-school-age-children-trnd/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

Quote
(CNN) ó Gun deaths of school-age children in the United States have increased at an alarming rate, with 38,942 fatalities among 5- to 18-year-olds from 1999 to 2017, according to a new study by Florida Atlantic University's Schmidt College of Medicine.

Indeed, spikes in gun deaths over the past decade amount to epidemics, researchers said.

"It is sobering that in 2017, there were 144 police officers who died in the line of duty and about 1,000 active duty military throughout the world who died, whereas 2,462 school-age children were killed by firearms," said Dr. Charles Hennekens, the study's senior author and an academic adviser at the medical college.

The study, to be published in the American Journal of Medicine, found that children are being gunned down in staggering numbers, with the death rate six to nine times higher than other developed nations.

The gun deaths included 6,464 children between the ages of 5 and 14 years old (an average of 340 deaths per year), and 32,478 deaths in children between 15 and 18 years old (an average of 2,050 deaths per year), according to the study.

Of the deaths, 86% involved boys, the study found. Black children accounted for 41% of those killed, though in recent years they've comprised just 14% of the US population, US census data show.

"Among blacks, the annual average percent change of 9.5% for firearm-related mortality among 5 to 14-year-olds from 2013 to 2017 exceeded the 7.8% for overall deaths among 15 to 24-year-olds during the early years of the human immunodeficiency virus epidemic from 1987 to 1995," the study said.

The research should have public policy implications, Hennekens said.
"We need more analytic studies on this, but in the meanwhile, we believe that trying to combat the epidemic of homicide due to firearms without addressing firearms is like combating the epidemic of lung cancer due to cigarettes without combating cigarettes," he said. "To me, it's tragic that this is going on."

Racial inequities have emerged, study finds
Black children between 5 and 14 years old began to experience statistically significant increases in gun deaths in 2013, the study found. And from 2013 to 2017, racial inequalities in firearm deaths between blacks and whites jumped significantly.
The study found these listed causes of death among the children: 61% from assault; 32% from suicide; 5% accidental; and 2% undetermined.

In the 5-to-14-year-old age group, accidents accounted for 12.8% of cases (830 deaths); suicide, 29.6% cases (1,912 deaths); assault, 54.8% cases (3,545 deaths); and undetermined, 2.7% (177 deaths), according to the study.

For those 15 to 18 years old, the cause of death was listed as accidental in 3.5% of cases (1,121 deaths); suicide, 32.9% (10,688 deaths); assault, 62.3% (20,247 deaths); and undetermined, 1.3% (422 deaths).

The study used data from the Multiple Cause of Death files of the US National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).
The researchers found statistically significant increases in gun deaths beginning in 2009, with what they termed an epidemic among 5- to 14-year-olds. A second epidemic, beginning in 2014, involved those in the 15-to-18-year-old age group.

The epidemics continued through 2017, the most recent year of available US mortality data.

The study said the epidemic poses clinical, public health and policy challenges. It singled out the 1996 Dickey Amendment as a major factor prohibiting analytic studies on the issue.

In 1996, Congress removed $2.6 million -- the amount the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spent on gun research the year prior -- from the CDC's budget and passed the so-called Dickey Amendment, named after late Republican Rep. Jay Dickey of Arkansas. Critics said the amendment ultimately led to the CDC halting gun violence research.

A study last year in the New England Journal of Medicine found that death by gunshot was the second-highest cause of death in the United States in 2016 among children and adolescents, ages 1 to 19.
The United States led the world in 2016 in the rate of firearm deaths in youth among countries with available data. The rate in the US was 36.5 times higher than in a dozen comparable high-income countries around the world; the rate of firearm deaths was five times as high compared with a sampling of low- to middle-income countries.

I think the study speaks to many things. One is the desperate need to address suicide and mental health. The numbers are staggering.

Second, the statistical data related to African-American deaths is depressing. Itís just more of the inner city gun culture which society largely ignores.

Third, itís a terrible reminder that weíre a long way from a solution, and the focus is in the wrong area. Iím on board with registration, background checks, required certification courses, reduction in clip size, no bump stocks, barring anybody with a crime of violence from owning or possessing, and regulating manufacturing standards to reduce rate of fire. Thatís a package that is decades away, and sadly, it probably wouldnít even help that much.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #85 on: March 23, 2019, 02:58:30 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4063
  • Tommy Points: 689
Wanna keep your guns, can you really justify it?

I mean, are you talking to potential mass shooters or murderers? Asking them to justify owning their guns? Or are you posing the question to the millions of people owning guns that will never harm anyone? I don't think there's much justification necessary for those people.


Hehe...yeah... mass murders! Stand up! Justify yourselves!

People feel strongly about their guns and strongly about having them taken away. Maybe they are hunters or farmers or scared of other people. Iíd like to hear how they justify their needs to have a gun above the needs of others needs not to get shot by a gun. Slippery slope... I know. But Just like those folks donít wanna have to have their right to own a gun trampled, I donít wanna have my right NOT to own gun trampled bc everyone else has one. Make sense?

I mean, I understand what you are trying to say. But I think you're conflating some completely independent things.

No one who does not use a gun to cause harm needs to justify their gun ownership against the consequence of someone using a gun to harm. I do not own a gun, but if I did, I would not be responsible for a single gun shot wound, murder, mass shooting by virtue of my gun ownership. My gun ownership is completely independent of someone else committing those acts.

I am not a gun owner and I don't feel like I need one because everyone else has one. I moved two months ago and I don't know my neighbors well yet. But in the house I lived for the previous 4 and half years, I was surrounded by houses with multiple guns in each one. I would even hear gun shots on a semi-regular basis. My right not to own a gun was still intact. So was my right to own one. There was no trampling in any direction.

Ok! Thatís exactly what I want to hear. TP. Why did your neighbors have and want guns? Is that want important enough to offset creation of stricter gun laws?

Imagine some law comes into effect with the purpose of getting guns out of the hands of people with the intent to do harm. But it has the side effect of also limiting guns for the people with out evil intentions. Do those people have a reasonable justification to oppose such a law?

Iím sure some do, as some have stated in this thread; protecting farms, hunting, maybe self preservation(debatable in my eyes). What other justifications might someone have? What would your neighbors justifications be? I had a housemate in college 25 years ago that had a pistol of some kind, a shotgun and an AK-47. He wasnít a farmer or a hunter. We went and blew up a TV, a vcr and some other crap at an unofficial gun range. It was a rush but I never did it again. Is that it for some people? The power trip? So for instance.... Sam, from college, if youíre on here, Iíd love to hear why you feel you have the right to have a people killing machine over the idea of keeping children safe at school and people safe at their places of worship.

Edit: I want to add that I recognize ďmy right not to own a gun being trampledĒ was hyperbole on my part. Iíll own that. But are we that far off? My kids practice mass shooting drills at their school, some kids go through metal detectors to get to school and some schools have armed officers. Are we that far off? Should churches, synagogues and mosques start practicing drills or have an armed guard atop the bell tower? When does the escalation stop so people donít have to continually protect themselves and live in fear?

And I guess I already gave you a TP so couldnít give another... I owe u one ;)
Regarding self preservation I think there are many people in Alaska, Wyoming, Montana that do very much need guns to feed themselves. So much of America is rural after all.

That's true and fair.  The begged question becomes:  What sort of guns and how many do they need to feed and protect themselves?

Should there be any limits at all on types of weapons or how many?

NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #86 on: March 23, 2019, 06:02:11 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4063
  • Tommy Points: 689
There is an not-talked-about aspect to the gun culture which is the 'hording' aspect.    When you look at the break down of statistics, while on one hand, there are rough 1.2 civilian-owned guns per person in the U.S., that statistic doesn't tell the real story.

In truth, the vast majority of civilian-owned guns in the U.S. are owned by a small fraction of the population.  Somewhere around 1 in 4 people in the U.S. own a gun.   But even that doesn't really tell the story.  Because, of that 1 in 4 subset, the vast majority only own just one gun.

Roughly 3% of the population own over HALF of all civilian owned guns.   That tiny segment (1 in 33 people) average ownership of over 6 guns each.

And within THAT tiny segment is actually an even tinier segment of well under 1% that owns a huge portion of that 'half of all guns'.   A subset of less than 1% of the population owns just over a 3rd of all those guns.  That's over 100 million guns!

What is up with that?   Why does this tiny, tiny segment of the US need to own so many weapons?

And is that reason something so important that the laws that affect ALL of us really need to allow?

I'm asking honestly here.   I think this needs to be understood before we can make progress in the debate.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #87 on: March 23, 2019, 06:05:15 PM »

Offline mobilija

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 500
  • Tommy Points: 134
Good point Roy. Here is some more information on Switzerland and gun ownership.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/switzerland-gun-laws-rates-of-gun-deaths-2018-2

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912

Good follow up story Chicagoceltic. That is the root of the issue. American culture and history is a love affair with guns. Personally, I donít get why itís priotitized over an attempt to save lives or limit gun violence.

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #88 on: March 23, 2019, 06:08:43 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 39152
  • Tommy Points: -27342
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
There is an not-talked-about aspect to the gun culture which is the 'hording' aspect.    When you look at the break down of statistics, while on one hand, there are rough 1.2 civilian-owned guns per person in the U.S., that statistic doesn't tell the real story.

In truth, the vast majority of civilian-owned guns in the U.S. are owned by a small fraction of the population.  Somewhere around 1 in 4 people in the U.S. own a gun.   But even that doesn't really tell the story.  Because, of that 1 in 4 subset, the vast majority only own just one gun.

Roughly 3% of the population own over HALF of all civilian owned guns.   That tiny segment (1 in 33 people) average ownership of over 6 guns each.

And within THAT tiny segment is actually an even tinier segment of well under 1% that owns a huge portion of that 'half of all guns'.   A subset of less than 1% of the population owns just over a 3rd of all those guns.  That's over 100 million guns!

What is up with that?   Why does this tiny, tiny segment of the US need to own so many weapons?

And is that reason something so important that the laws that affect ALL of us really need to allow?

I'm asking honestly here.   I think this needs to be understood before we can make progress in the debate.

Does that 1% commit violent crimes? Are they irresponsible with their guns? If not, thereís a pretty strong argument that theyíre not a problem, even if common sense strongly suggests that those guns should be registered.

As for why they hoard, it seems like a cross between collectors (not a huge problem), people who use guns for different uses (not a problem), and paranoid militia types (potentially a problem).

I know my father, grandfather, and multiple uncles own 30+ guns. Most are hunting rifles that theyíve had for decades.



« Last Edit: March 23, 2019, 06:15:37 PM by Roy H. »
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: New Zealand reforming gun laws
« Reply #89 on: March 23, 2019, 06:12:34 PM »

Offline mobilija

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 500
  • Tommy Points: 134
There is an not-talked-about aspect to the gun culture which is the 'hording' aspect.    When you look at the break down of statistics, while on one hand, there are rough 1.2 civilian-owned guns per person in the U.S., that statistic doesn't tell the real story.

In truth, the vast majority of civilian-owned guns in the U.S. are owned by a small fraction of the population.  Somewhere around 1 in 4 people in the U.S. own a gun.   But even that doesn't really tell the story.  Because, of that 1 in 4 subset, the vast majority only own just one gun.

Roughly 3% of the population own over HALF of all civilian owned guns.   That tiny segment (1 in 33 people) average ownership of over 6 guns each.

And within THAT tiny segment is actually an even tinier segment of well under 1% that owns a huge portion of that 'half of all guns'.   A subset of less than 1% of the population owns just over a 3rd of all those guns.  That's over 100 million guns!

What is up with that?   Why does this tiny, tiny segment of the US need to own so many weapons?

And is that reason something so important that the laws that affect ALL of us really need to allow?

I'm asking honestly here.   I think this needs to be understood before we can make progress in the debate.

My uncle lived in Ohio and recently passed away. He owned close to 50 guns as a collector and an avid shooter. He would go to Cowboy Meets to dress as a cowboy and shoot in contests. Part of his funeral was going to his back acre shooting range. He was lauded as a collector and also a kind of gentle giant. I loved him dearly and wish I could have had this kind of discussion with him but never did.

Sorry, not real helpful to your question other than... itís a hobby.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.

Community

Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required