Re: More must be done to minimize, not necessarily with greater regulation - Edit 1
Before modification by Isaac at 25/12/2012 08:42:25 PM
Vehicle deaths are mostly accidental, a gun is designed to kill things, especially people. You can kill someone with a car quite easily, just a pain for premeditated murder of an individual. No law or safety feature on a car has made them one bit safer in regards to specifically trying to kill someone with one.
car accidents used to kill a lot more people, as your research found. then they required people to wear seat belts at all times and the deaths were limited to specific types of accidents. then they required air bags in cars and certain other specific types of accidents began to be survivable. then they required that air bags not kill people after deployment, and people stopped suffocating after accidents. now we have kid car seats, side curtain air bags and a host of other features that are standard now instead of only found on volvo or mercedes.
I think you're assuming I debate that we should regulate that, I don't, same as I think it's legit to demand guns come with safeties and people have the safety engaged on public property. What I am saying is that our ERs are a lot better these days and a lot of those death that aren't happening are from that. It's same as our fatality rate overseas, the body armor helps a lot, the treatment on injury helps a lot too. One you're missing in their those is DUI, we've cracked down on that pretty hard too and I'd bet it holds a big chunk of the credit. You won't hear me object to laws about carrying a deadly weapon while intoxicated at DUI levels.
I'm very leery of saying seatbelt laws are principally responsible, odds are superior emergency rooms and EMTs get the lionshare, but I support those laws and believe them valuable. I wantr to be be very careful here though crediting that to regulation, I think it did help but I don't think it matches either education or improved tech in repsonsibility for those saved lives.
seat belts have been in cars since at least the 1950s, but were not included as mandatory devices until the late 1970s. and it was not until the mid-1980s that it began to be a requirement to wear them at all times while driving, under penalty of law. as a result, fewer and fewer people die every year in car crashes. how is that not due to regulation? you can't tell me people are *more* knowledgeable about driving than they were 20 years ago? anecdotal evidence would seem to indicate there are still people out there who don't know how to drive 
The rates been steadily declining since 1941 in terms of deaths per mile driven, that's probably the best raw figure to use since the big spike from 66-73 where it was over 50k every year might just indicate a sudden wave of young baby boomers getting licensed, mandatory belts installed in cars was federal in 1968, and of course the states all trickled in in the 80's, there's no identifiable drop correlated to that, though I think it has to be a factor. Law is of limited use on teens and young adults, out big accident causers, so I think it took a generation to expect that to work well. Certainly my own anecdotal evidence says seat belts are worn increasingly regularly and drivers are much more likely to demand passengers buckle up. There's a drop, but not in comparison to preceding and following years, there's a long steady drop in per capita and per mile driven that whole way. I'm sure the laws did help though, but there's a lot of variables in here and I'd also guess that if tomorrow SCOTUS said seat belt laws were unconstitutional (not saying they should) it would have minimal impact on their use.
in all seriousness though, it took federal legislation to make cars safer for everyone. with enough guns to provide one to almost every single US citizen in circulation right now, it's time for federal legislation to make guns less deadly for everyone.
There's really no evidence federal legislation was necessary, I'd also bet a discount to manufacturers for installing them or a gov't award to the manufacturer who made 'this years safest vehicle' would be as effective or more so. A lot of them would drool for the opportunity to say 'Uncle Sam said it's the safest vehicle on the road'. Again, I am not someone who objects to laws of that sort or hanging fire exit signs in buildings, I'm a republican not a full blown libertarian precisely because I believe sometimes it is necessary or advantageous for the gov't to stick its fingers in the pie, but I think you're over-crediting the effect of regulation on a civilian populace and ignoring that for manufacturers a lot of times a carrot works better, if for no better reason then they respond with enthusiasm and creativity instead of bringing in the lawyers and getting resentful.
I think we ran the numbers last massacre and found that per capita the US did not significantly exceed spree killing deaths compared to gun control countries. As for clips, pox on the NRA and the uneducated anti-gun sorts, I'm a piss poor machinist and I could spew you out a compatible casket mag for any gun model. These kind of regs you're thinking of for magazine capacity require we ignore the internet as a source of info, extreme human stupidity, and reality. Magazines are literally just boxes for ammo. I don't care if we lower magazine capacity much, but merely because its a handwave, anyone who has told you otherwise is a fool or a liar or both. For belted ammo it literally is just a sack or box, for fed ammo someone needs to master the idea of a spring, nothing more, a magazine makes a toaster look complex.
and anyone who modifies their weapon in such a way, then uses it to either commit a crime or in self defense can be punished accordingly.
Yes, 9 out of 10 spree killers have stopped to say, "Hey, maybe I should use a short magazine, 20 first-degree murders is enough time in jail without adding anything on."
people modify their cars all the time, but they still have to pass a safety inspection before they can drive on public streets. in addition, there is no need for having the ability to fire that much ammo at one time unless you are in a war zone.
Subjective view, if someone wants me dead my geographic location isn't too meaningful. Most bullets are shot to make the other guy keep his head down to give you time to move, get reinforcements, etc. If I've ammo to burn and a good field of fire and someone's threatening my life I'm going to burn a shot every couple of seconds, even when it's a low probability shot, just to keep him nervous and disrupt his shooting at me and give the cops more time to show up. War zone doesn't change that, modern warfare is genuinely single digit numbers when firefights break out, a lot closer to police or civilian self-defense situations then back in the day, but you can still chew through ammo real damn quick, even on single shot because you'll be trying to get the other guy to duck, flinch, make mistakes, not hear the calvary coming or be able to formulate a plan to deal with them, etc.
And, not to be offensive, but either you're just assuming or you've been listening to people who make grand proclamations of opinion as fact, Lord knows there is no shortage of those one every side of every issue. There's no logical reason why a soldier needs more ammo in an engagement then a civilian. There's also no denying that a 20 round mag and a 10 round mag both of good construction give a better edge to the guy with a 20, and I think people who obey the law should have maximum advantage considering the people we're worried about generally don't obey the law.
as someone who has admitted being in active military duty,
i'm sure you of all people commenting here know how true that is.
i'm sure you of all people commenting here know how true that is.
Just got done saying it isn't true, so no
I'm a bit irked you don't really comment on the above.
not really sure what it is you were expecting? i think we both agree that some kind of training should be part of owning a gun, the question is who pays for it and should it be mandatory. mandatory is better, and preferably *before* taking possession of the gun, because at least you know for sure that the person who is buying the gun is versed in the basics of safety and use before they have a chance to use it.
Mandatory isn't better, if for no better reason than you won't likely get it, so work with what is possible and focus on strongly encouraged voluntary options. Personally I think you and the left as a whole are so hostile to guns that you seek stick options over carrots in spite of normally being huge supporters of carrot-learning on virtually everything else. If I suggested a voluntary free program run by the IRS explaining taxes you'd never talk about 'mandatory is better'. The government runs, at all levels, huge numbers of training programs, some very effective, and/or advisory ones like Agri Extension and Master Gardener, keeps the cost low, convinces all of the ready value, and doesn't have to make it mandatory. Seeking a mandatory option when you know it will meet howls and screams before seriously trying voluntary options just emphasizes the hostility at guns and gun supporters and makes a lot of us think you're not of clear head, and this thread like many other sis full of people swinging insults about that were not sufficiently warranted so it's easy for me to believe.
Also you totally skipped concealed or early education which is what irked me.
I don't see a need for guns except for self-defense, games and hunting -same difference - might have their value but I've never carried a gun without expectation to need to kill someone with it. And I can say that paranoia bit is absolute hogwash, my friend, utter absurdity, hollywood nonsense, take your pick. A gun is better than a knife or a cell phone call to 911 if you're threatened, if it weren't, we wouldn't arm soldiers with them. That was all just talking points and silly ones to relay at me, show some respect, I'm not an idiot. Of course a gun isn't the only way to protect yourself, but its one of the best, and the others are equally lethal.
i know you're not an idiot, but i felt i had to elaborate the point anyway, because you seem to insist that a gun's only purpose is self-defense. even above, you relegate hunting and games to lesser pursuits that you have no need for. yes, a gun *can* be effective at self-defense, but i'm still not convinced it is *necessary*.
Self-defense, defense of others or property are the only uses of guns that mean much to me. Give a damn about hunting specifically, and those games are at best fun, athletic ways for people to get more comfortable and trained with guns. But approving of paintball as a sport and method of training with guns is still 'self-defense', because the game aids, as does hunting, in being comfortable with a weapon. I do not understand why this point is confusing to you. Their principle purpose is for killing things, no more worthy cause then defense, certainly offense or robbery isn't, and I don't think hunting is some natural human right that if banned (I'd oppose that) would diminish us or endanger us. One sees damned little need for a gun for any other purpose but defense of self, others, property.
also, yes i think it is paranoid for gun owners like yourself
I don't own one, don't hunt, live in a safe area right by a police station and our principal speed trap, and I'd end up building a collection which gets expensive. Way too many friends with arsenals and bunkers, way too much my cup of tea and I'm competitive, open that door and I'd end up burning a fortune trying to one up theirs.
to say they *need* a gun for protection. the idea that we all live in such a dangerous world that we have to protect ourselves at all costs is more in line with hollywood than reality. there are very few places where i believe a gun is absolutely needed for protection, but it seems the vast majority of people using this self-defense claim do not live in such places. i'm not going to pretend i know where you live, but if you are in an area which is so prone to violence and crime that a gun is your only means of deterrence, then by all means you can have your gun for defense. but if you only have a gun so you can *feel* protected, then you do not truly need it, and the idea that you are going to protect yourself is nothing more than a fantasy designed to justify your gun ownership. there are plenty of other alternatives which are just as lethal as you say.
So knowing no realistic change in gun laws is on the horizon, pragmatism says maximize training to maximize safety, yes?
for individual ownership, yes i agree completely. for public safety, we need stricter laws and we need a federal government willing to pass those laws for the public good. things seem to be changing since sandy hook, but we've still got a long way to go...
Why not avoid a battle with the NRA and start with education, if they're right spree killings and armed robberies will drop or at least see a serious drop in success rates. If they're wrong, they lose their main card. To me its common sense, find an education route they think works well and give them a chance to prove it. To do otherwise implies serious concern they will turn out to be right.