Conquer Club

The stats regarding sexual assault indicate a large number of victims are children or young adults, and likely wouldn't or couldn't be packin' heat:

RAINN Statitics wrote:15% of sexual assault and rape victims are under age 12.3

29% are age 12-17.
44% are under age 18.3
80% are under age 30.3
12-34 are the highest risk years.
Girls ages 16-19 are 4 times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.

Prevention of sexual assault can be accomplished with more effective means than a gun I think, and RAINN seems to suggest this on their website as well.


--Andy

thegreekdog wrote:

ooge wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

ooge wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Analogous thinking can be misleading.

So can blindly following and Ideology

Do people have the right to protect themselves? The right to life?

Life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. your life my life are more important then your liberty my liberty...that is why the founders put it in that order. I cant take credit for this idea a father of a slain child from Newtown said it.

If only it was a crime to shoot people...

Serious question , in cases of accidental firearm deaths do people in the USA ever get prosecuted for manslaughter or something similar. Also are there laws protecting the families of gun owners , I know children have been killed whilst playing with firearms , are the parents ever prosecuted for neglect.

But the authors of the "gun control" bill admit that it wouldn't have done anything to prevent any of the mass shootings over the last few years, so it's basically feel-good legislation

And to all the people who think closing the "loopholes" would prevent a shooting, please tell us which of the mass shooters in the recent past got their gun through a "loophole"?

comic boy wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

ooge wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

ooge wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Analogous thinking can be misleading.

So can blindly following and Ideology

Do people have the right to protect themselves? The right to life?

Life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. your life my life are more important then your liberty my liberty...that is why the founders put it in that order. I cant take credit for this idea a father of a slain child from Newtown said it.

If only it was a crime to shoot people...

Serious question , in cases of accidental firearm deaths do people in the USA ever get prosecuted for manslaughter or something similar. Also are there laws protecting the families of gun owners , I know children have been killed whilst playing with firearms , are the parents ever prosecuted for neglect.

Just like car accidents...

comic boy wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

ooge wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

ooge wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Analogous thinking can be misleading.

So can blindly following and Ideology

Do people have the right to protect themselves? The right to life?

Life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. your life my life are more important then your liberty my liberty...that is why the founders put it in that order. I cant take credit for this idea a father of a slain child from Newtown said it.

If only it was a crime to shoot people...

Serious question , in cases of accidental firearm deaths do people in the USA ever get prosecuted for manslaughter or something similar. Also are there laws protecting the families of gun owners , I know children have been killed whilst playing with firearms , are the parents ever prosecuted for neglect.

Yes - sometimes. Neglegent Homocide, but that's all up to prosecutors.
http://www.ktxs.com/news/Neighbors-mour ... index.html

Here you have a 4 year old girl, shot in the head through a wall, by an adult who was "cleaning a loaded gun." Not a crime, apparently.
Each week occupy the NRA has about 10 news stories shared with us about kids "accidentally" killed by adults or teenagers. It's obviously not common, given the size of America, but that's 10 deaths a week that can easily be prevented.

anyone think that the taxes should go up for the sale of guns and ammunition to pay for all the security that is needed because of the overabundance of guns in the USA? Or a gun owners insurance against all the wrongful deaths that occur as a result of guns?

ooge wrote:anyone think that the taxes should go up for the sale of guns and ammunition to pay for all the security that is needed because of the overabundance of guns in the USA? Or a gun owners insurance against all the wrongful deaths that occur as a result of guns?

No and no. How is there an overabundance of guns and according to whom? Gun ownership is actually down over the last several decades. And gun insurance would do absolutely nothing to prevent killings.

Night Strike wrote:

ooge wrote:anyone think that the taxes should go up for the sale of guns and ammunition to pay for all the security that is needed because of the overabundance of guns in the USA? Or a gun owners insurance against all the wrongful deaths that occur as a result of guns?

No and no. How is there an overabundance of guns and according to whom? Gun ownership is actually down over the last several decades. And gun insurance would do absolutely nothing to prevent killings.

There can't be many countries where there is about 1 gun per head of population,including children and the incarcerated,and large numbers of the population can see no problem with that.Must be working out just fine...

Road to disaster and we are living next to them. I hope they go south, not north when it happens.

Sorry Nietsche.

ooge wrote:anyone think that the taxes should go up for the sale of guns and ammunition to pay for all the security that is needed because of the overabundance of guns in the USA? Or a gun owners insurance against all the wrongful deaths that occur as a result of guns?

Most likely not, cuz

1. increasing the price on legal guns might not affect the price on illegal guns
2. if it does, it may not be enough of a price increase
3. this taxes unnecessarily punishes responsible citizens for participating in a relatively safe form of entertainment
4. those taxes will most likely not go to "additional security cuz too many guns in US."


No to insurance program. Imposing costs on a group which isn't responsible for the outcomes of other people's guns would not incentivize people to commit less crimes---especially if they obtained the gun illegally, thereby can avoid the insurance scheme.

chang50 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

ooge wrote:anyone think that the taxes should go up for the sale of guns and ammunition to pay for all the security that is needed because of the overabundance of guns in the USA? Or a gun owners insurance against all the wrongful deaths that occur as a result of guns?

No and no. How is there an overabundance of guns and according to whom? Gun ownership is actually down over the last several decades. And gun insurance would do absolutely nothing to prevent killings.

There can't be many countries where there is about 1 gun per head of population,including children and the incarcerated,and large numbers of the population can see no problem with that.Must be working out just fine...

It is working out just fine. In 99% of the USA's counties, there are 0-1 homocides per year.

The problem is almost entirely in the cities, and the problem is caused by a plethora of different reasons, such as race, age, culture, income, education, peer pressure, children born out of wedlock, gangs, and laws. It is not because of all the guns people who do not live in the city own.

No Senator has read the bill. Anyone surprised?



Which is how you get to this, intentionally brainwashing Americans and confiscation

Phatscotty wrote:

chang50 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

ooge wrote:anyone think that the taxes should go up for the sale of guns and ammunition to pay for all the security that is needed because of the overabundance of guns in the USA? Or a gun owners insurance against all the wrongful deaths that occur as a result of guns?

No and no. How is there an overabundance of guns and according to whom? Gun ownership is actually down over the last several decades. And gun insurance would do absolutely nothing to prevent killings.

There can't be many countries where there is about 1 gun per head of population,including children and the incarcerated,and large numbers of the population can see no problem with that.Must be working out just fine...

It is working out just fine. In 99% of the USA's counties, there are 0-1 homocides per year.

The problem is almost entirely in the cities, and the problem is caused by a plethora of different reasons, such as race, age, culture, income, education, peer pressure, children born out of wedlock, gangs, and laws. It is not because of all the guns people who do not live in the city own.

I have no idea if your figures are correct , perhaps you might supply some data , but if things are 'just fine' then why the continued debate ?

Night Strike wrote:

ooge wrote:anyone think that the taxes should go up for the sale of guns and ammunition to pay for all the security that is needed because of the overabundance of guns in the USA? Or a gun owners insurance against all the wrongful deaths that occur as a result of guns?

No and no. How is there an overabundance of guns and according to whom? Gun ownership is actually down over the last several decades. And gun insurance would do absolutely nothing to prevent killings.

America is a lot like the scene from the Matrix.

Tank: So what do you need? Besides a miracle.
Neo: Guns. Lots of guns.

--Andy

comic boy wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

chang50 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

ooge wrote:anyone think that the taxes should go up for the sale of guns and ammunition to pay for all the security that is needed because of the overabundance of guns in the USA? Or a gun owners insurance against all the wrongful deaths that occur as a result of guns?

No and no. How is there an overabundance of guns and according to whom? Gun ownership is actually down over the last several decades. And gun insurance would do absolutely nothing to prevent killings.

There can't be many countries where there is about 1 gun per head of population,including children and the incarcerated,and large numbers of the population can see no problem with that.Must be working out just fine...

It is working out just fine. In 99% of the USA's counties, there are 0-1 homocides per year.

The problem is almost entirely in the cities, and the problem is caused by a plethora of different reasons, such as race, age, culture, income, education, peer pressure, children born out of wedlock, gangs, and laws. It is not because of all the guns people who do not live in the city own.

I have no idea if your figures are correct , perhaps you might supply some data , but if things are 'just fine' then why the continued debate ?

Cuz it's going through the Senate in the next 5 days?? Is this not a good time??

About the gun homocide rate by county, as if that's even challengable? Just think it out with me for a second. There were roughly 12,000 gun homicide deaths in the USA last year. Take out Chicago, DC, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Baltimore, Detroit, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Flint Michigan, Oakland Cali, St. Louis, Memphis, Little Rock and Birmingham Alabama, Buffalo, Miami, Orlando, Philadelphia, Newark, Indianapolis and a few other major cities out of the equation.......how many gun homocides are left to divvy up between the rest of the 3.7 million square miles/counties??? Not many

Let me show another way. I'll just say up front before I even start that I have no idea what the result will be, but I am going on confidence in the numbers that it will match up.

Here is my state that borders your country.




murders total (not just guns, all murders)





As you can see, a large majority of our counties have ZERO murders, most of the rest have 1 or 2 murders. North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Iowa, all have a LOT less murders than Minnesota. That's thousands of counties that have 0-1's (not even gun murders....total murders)

BigBallinStalin wrote:

ooge wrote:anyone think that the taxes should go up for the sale of guns and ammunition to pay for all the security that is needed because of the overabundance of guns in the USA? Or a gun owners insurance against all the wrongful deaths that occur as a result of guns?

Most likely not, cuz

1. increasing the price on legal guns might not affect the price on illegal guns
2. if it does, it may not be enough of a price increase
3. this taxes unnecessarily punishes responsible citizens for participating in a relatively safe form of entertainment
4. those taxes will most likely not go to "additional security cuz too many guns in US."


No to insurance program. Imposing costs on a group which isn't responsible for the outcomes of other people's guns would not incentivize people to commit less crimes---especially if they obtained the gun illegally, thereby can avoid the insurance scheme.

1) 2) Doesn't do anything for the question at hand. Let's not turn this into another Libertarian case of "I don't want to pay money for my risky behavior that doesn't concern you." It's a simple cost analysis.

3) Define "responsible." In your scenario you would not have drivers purchase car insurance, unless perhaps they had already had an accident. Yet we all accept the cost of auto insurance (and see the benefits) as part of the cost of having the driving privilege. Why should it be different for gun owners?

4) The money should work just like auto insurance, to help the victims or their families.

No gun owner can be called responsible if they are arguing against gun owners insurance. All guns used in crime in America come from legal sources. Just like all cars used in crime come from legal sources. And most guns sold in America do not require background checks, either because they are sold privately or because they are sold at trade shows. And according to the FBI, only 2.2% of all fatal gun shootings are ruled justifiable homicide. It's just not a realistic scenario. But a gun in your home increases the risk that you will be shot to death by 72%, it's 22x more likely to be used in a suicide than for defense, it triples the risk of homicide, it increases the risk of suicide by a factor of 5, and abused woman are 6x more likely to be murdered just if there is a gun available in the home. That's not to mention that most children who are shot to death are shot by people they know.
Now people would argue that there are a lot of gun owners in this country who's guns are strictly for hunting, or who have never been involved in a crime. And that's a fine and just argument. But those gun owners should still pay for gun insurance, because most of these fatal shootings did involve a supposedly responsible gun owner just like them. It's just for the same reason that requiring all drivers to buy auto insurance is just.

Phatscotty wrote:As you can see, a large majority of our counties have ZERO murders, most of the rest have 1 or 2 murders. North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Iowa, all have a LOT less murders than Minnesota. That's thousands of counties that have 0-1's (not even gun murders....total murders)

A large majority of those countys have like, 10 million square miles and 11 people.

Phatscotty wrote: Take out Chicago, DC, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Baltimore, Detroit, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Flint Michigan, Oakland Cali, St. Louis, Memphis, Little Rock and Birmingham Alabama, Buffalo, Miami, Orlando, Philadelphia, Newark, Indianapolis and a few other major cities out of the equation.......how many gun homocides are left to divvy up between the rest of the 3.7 million square miles/counties??? Not many

That's like, half our population.
But I see what you're saying.
Guns should be outlawed in every US city, as defined by US census.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

ooge wrote:anyone think that the taxes should go up for the sale of guns and ammunition to pay for all the security that is needed because of the overabundance of guns in the USA? Or a gun owners insurance against all the wrongful deaths that occur as a result of guns?

Most likely not, cuz

1. increasing the price on legal guns might not affect the price on illegal guns
2. if it does, it may not be enough of a price increase
3. this taxes unnecessarily punishes responsible citizens for participating in a relatively safe form of entertainment
4. those taxes will most likely not go to "additional security cuz too many guns in US."


No to insurance program. Imposing costs on a group which isn't responsible for the outcomes of other people's guns would not incentivize people to commit less crimes---especially if they obtained the gun illegally, thereby can avoid the insurance scheme.

1) 2) Doesn't do anything for the question at hand. Let's not turn this into another Libertarian case of "I don't want to pay money for my risky behavior that doesn't concern you." It's a simple cost analysis.

Well, JB, it's not a libertarian argument. It's about how people would react to price changes. It's not wise to ignore that.

Maybe if the question is "why wont American's accept it?"
Because the answer is wholly different than if the question is "what's logical/responsible?"

comic boy wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

ooge wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

ooge wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Analogous thinking can be misleading.

So can blindly following and Ideology

Do people have the right to protect themselves? The right to life?

Life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. your life my life are more important then your liberty my liberty...that is why the founders put it in that order. I cant take credit for this idea a father of a slain child from Newtown said it.

If only it was a crime to shoot people...

Serious question , in cases of accidental firearm deaths do people in the USA ever get prosecuted for manslaughter or something similar. Also are there laws protecting the families of gun owners , I know children have been killed whilst playing with firearms , are the parents ever prosecuted for neglect.

Short answer - yes to the first question; I don't know to the second question (but would assume yes). Further on the second question, if a child is accidentally killed due to firearm security neglect, the parent has received an exceedingly harsh punishment already.

As to the issue at hand, and as I've indicated in prior threads...

(1) Gun control, as it is currently being proposed, is constitutional (under the TGD intepretation of the Constitution - the Second Amendment protects groups, not individuals). Even if not under the TGD interpretation, it is still constitutional, much like the bans on bazookas and machine guns.

(2) The most serious bill in Congress right now would do virtually nothing to protect against gun violence in the United States (it doesn't ban hand guns, by far the most used weapon for homicides), would not stop mass shootings (as indicated in the previous Assault Weapons Ban, the weapons can be modified to shoot the exact same way... they just look less scary), and ultimately does not solve the inherent problem with gun violence - the people doing the shooting (just like drunk driving, for example).

(3) I'm extremely annoyed at both the gun control advocates and the gun advocates. There is no bill in Congress that would affect anyone (gun ownership or future gun victim) in any substantial way and this debate (in Congress and in the public) is a complete waste of time and energy.

thegreekdog wrote:(3) I'm extremely annoyed at both the gun control advocates and the gun advocates. There is no bill in Congress that would affect anyone (gun ownership or future gun victim) in any substantial way and this debate (in Congress and in the public) is a complete waste of time and energy.

It's most likely a waste of time and energy on net, but it's very beneficial for particular politicians seeking to maximize votes. Why not take advantage of the uninformed by harping about gun control/de-control?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:(3) I'm extremely annoyed at both the gun control advocates and the gun advocates. There is no bill in Congress that would affect anyone (gun ownership or future gun victim) in any substantial way and this debate (in Congress and in the public) is a complete waste of time and energy.

It's most likely a waste of time and energy on net, but it's very beneficial for particular politicians seeking to maximize votes. Why not take advantage of the uninformed by harping about gun control/de-control?

Hmm... fair point. It appears that the politicians, pundits, and lobbyists on both sides are making out well.