Something which all of us, both sides in any discussion, need to keep in mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
Printable View
Something which all of us, both sides in any discussion, need to keep in mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
Indeed :)
Hey I admit I may be wrong, but IMO guns and the people who use them more often and not cause trouble.
Less guns would generally mean less deaths by guns. That in my view would be a better way to look towards rather than training 9 years olds to use them.
Nor did I say I 9 year old would. I said should not be in a car, as statistics show cars, whether driver or passenger, to be much more deadly than guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
Less stairs would mean fewer deaths by stairs. Banning cars would mean fewer deaths by vehicle accidents.Quote:
Originally Posted by steveaki13
In the end, removing guns from law abiding citizens has shown in the majority of cases to increase violent crime, including murder. Look at any large city for proof of that. On the flip side, areas that adopt concealed carry permits for law abiding owners lowers violent crime rates almost immediately.
So the reality is more legally owned guns reduces deaths by guns.
Having dug into this subject a number of times over the years, I've found that often many different places use the "less death caused by guns" statement, which may be true. Many of them also see an increased murder rate, suicide rates change very little, etc, etc.
If cigarettes were outlawed and it was strictly enforced, no doubt deaths caused by smoking would decline. But if all those former smokers drank themselves to death, would it have accomplished anything?
So why is it that the homicide rate in London is around 2.5 per 100,000 per year and is significantly lower than most large US cities?Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Chicago - 15.2
LA - 7.8
NYC - 4.0
Houston 16.3
I would suggest that the majority of people do own guns can't be trusted. I think that virtually every metric on the subject also proves this to be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Furthermore, the Second Amendment even says as much:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
If people could be trusted, why would they need to be "well regulated"?
Yes, I will suggest that 38,475,000 of those who do own guns can't be trusted and they can not be trusted to the tune of billions a year. The United States collectively pays for it with wasted GDP on increased health care costs and associated on-costs relating to crime as well.
I will make large large sweeping statements and use hyperbolae. I happen to live in a society which is statistically thirty-five to fifty times safer than the United States precisely because people for the most part are not trusted to own guns.
If there is a capability to abuse something, it is very easy to show that it will be abused and that goes right across the board for a whole host of issues, not just gun ownership.
There's a thing too:Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...s-to-catch-on/
If just 10 percent of the vehicles on the road were self-driving cars, the authors estimate, the country could save more than $37 billion a year — fewer deaths, less fuel, more free time. If we reached a point where self-driving vehicles constituted 90 percent of the cars on the road, the benefits would rise to some $447.1 billion a year.
- Washington Post, 23rd Oct 2014
If I was a large company like Pickfords or FedEx, I would seriously be looking at investing in self-driving vehicles. Self-driving vehicles where you'd remove the human element would produce fewer vehicle accidents provided the technology was good enough.
This is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Deaths by stairs in the US is about 1500 a year, deaths by elevator are less than 30. (I'd need to go back and find the stats for this if you like).
The vast majority of those who own guns here have never before, and never will, shoot another person. That does not jibe in any way with your comment. Please explain. Not to mention citing the metric you quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Read it again. It says the militia should be well regulated, not the people. It comes from the founding of our country and the mistrust of government and government tyranny.Quote:
Furthermore, the Second Amendment even says as much:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
If people could be trusted, why would they need to be "well regulated"?
If that works for you, and I'm sure it does, I support your right to have that kind of government and will make no attempt to interfere. The courtesy of reciprocal action on your part will be appreciated.Quote:
I will make large large sweeping statements and use hyperbolae. I happen to live in a society which is statistically thirty-five to fifty times safer than the United States precisely because people for the most part are not trusted to own guns.
If there is a capability to abuse something, it is very easy to show that it will be abused and that goes right across the board for a whole host of issues, not just gun ownership.
Yes. I'd forgot about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...arms-quotation
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson. Earliest known appearance in print: 1989