Hotscot

I can go with that. Make it less easy to get a gun.

AhCrap

Can't think of one but I wouldn't be surprised if there was in fact a report of someone intoxicated attacking a school and killing several people somewhere in the world.

I'm sure they exist, wouldn't a better comparison be when was the last time an intoxicated child either killed themselves, or killed their brother/friend and the death was either primarily or entirely attributed to their intoxicated state?

If the goal is to heavily restrict or prohibit something or a behavior to save lives it is not, if the goal is to get rid of something you don't approve of than of course it would be ridiculous.

If the argument is that recreational gun ownership is inflicting too high of a cost and therefore needs to be either heavily restricted and or banned the same argument can be made for recreational consumption of Alcohol that the human cost is too high. The favored counter argument is that Alcohol is not designed to kill but the problem with that argument is that Alcohol is in fact killing and its killing more people than something that is designed to kill.

If you can't bring yourself to give up or heavily restrict recreational consumption of Alcohol to save just as many lives if not more lives than guns why should those who enjoy target shooting or hunting agree to further heavily restrict or give up guns?

Would you agree with the sentiment that if your going to claim a moral high ground that it would be in your best interest to not engage in a recreational behavior/activity that kills more people than the recreational activity you are trying to restrict or prohibit?

Obviously cars is not that good of an argument because quite frankly it is more of a need to survive and or to maintain or improve living conditions and one could definitely argue that the benefits outweigh the cost. Where as society does not need recreational Alcohol or guns to survive or to maintain or improve living conditions.

To be fair but wouldn't #2 be go to a gun range to target shoot everyday?

Another problem is that statistically speaking more school aged children die by alcohol, either a drunk driver or a drunk parent or just simply drinking too much alcohol than die by guns.

Exactly that is the point I'm trying to make. It seems to me that the real argument being made against guns is just quite simply I don't approve of guns therefore you shouldn't be allowed to own one or at the very least it should be heavily restricted. There is nothing wrong with that argument but it isn't really that strong of an argument and god knows that if it was considered one than Alcohol would definitely be in danger especially in the bible belt. The pro gun argument is the same just vice versa and that is I like guns therefore I should be allowed to have easy access to them. In my opinion this debate isn't really about saving lives but is instead a culture war.

Michael

81 million people are classified as living in rural areas in the US and that figure is probably low since rural is classified as any county that has less than 10,000 people in a cluster. In the following map, everything is white is classified as rural. Dark green are classified as Metropolitan areas which have more than 50,000 people in a cluster and light green are Micropolitan area with 10,000-50,000 people in a cluster.

The problem is that areas are classified by counties and therefore if there is one cluster of more than 50,000 people in a county, it is classified as a Metropolitan area. Living in California, you know that probably over 90% of the state is rural but about 75% of the state is classified as Metropolitan.

Another example of badly classifying a rural area as a Metropolitan area is the northern Minnesota St. Louis county. The main city is Duluth with population of 86,000 but the rest of the county probably doesn't have another 86,000 people but covers 6,800 square miles.

Sally Redux

The number of people dying due to alcohol is presumably similar in Britain and the US. So what does it have to do with anything? It's not an either/or.

No I don't 'like' guns. Is that odd in some way? There may be an argument for using them as a defence tool. That should be heavily regulated with the guns safely stored etc.

Every time these things happen, people are falling over themselves to justify an out-of-control situation. Maybe they feel it's part of being integrated into US life.

Michael

You missed one point. Most violent gun deaths are done by people that are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Therefore the core problem in most cases is not necessarily guns but alcohol and drugs.

Hotscot

What would lessen the probability of a fatality here though?

No alcohol/drugs?
Or no gun?

AhCrap

It is to point out that recreational alcohol consumption is more dangerous to your health in the UK than guns are in the USA and that if the person is going to act morally or ethically superior because of their country's gun laws they might want to take a step back and ask themselves do they engage in recreational activities that are condoned in their home country that kill more people on a per capita basis than firearms do in the USA and are they willing or unwilling to give up a product or recreational behavior that does in fact kill more than guns do.

No there is nothing odd at all, I'm just pointing out that really all your argument is is quite simply I don't approve of this or I don't like this therefore it should be heavily regulated or prohibited. Nothing wrong with that just that it isn't a strong argument and quite frankly that same argument could be made against Alcohol and if it is made than quite frankly you are not in a strong position to challenge it.

Is it out of control? Gun homicides and gun accidents appear to be dropping, non fatal gun assaults are also falling if not have stabilized. The only thing that seems to be increasing are gun suicides and sensational gun assaults that quite frankly make up a very trivial number of homicides or non fatal gun assaults.

If you had to choose one of those it would be the alcohol/drugs. If there was no drugs there would be no drug war and a lot of gun violence in the USA is tied to the drug war/drug selling. It is almost like killing two birds with one stone if you got rid of the drugs or at the very least legalized them.

Michael

If we could eliminate alcohol and drugs, all fatalities including non gun related deaths, would likely drop more than banning guns.

I'm not referring to suicides since suicides in the US and UK have about the same rate and it's not a big difference if someone hangs themselves, jumps off a building or bridge, gasses themselves, jumps in front of a train, or shoots themselves. In fact the argument about suicides by gun opponents likely weakens their argument in the eyes of many.

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

RoadWarriorFromLP

Those who are murdered by guns aren't any less dead because there are alcoholics in the world.

The booze argument is just a long-winded effort to change the subject. I wouldn't indulge it, except to point out that it is entirely irrelevant.

Jerseygirl

Driving through the southern states there are loads off billboards advertising gun sales. What other civilised country does this?

RoadWarriorFromLP

To be fair, hunting and shooting are popular in rural America. They aren't bad people because of this.

Guns do pose a public health problem, but looking down our noses at country folk for having different hobbies only adds to the polarization that makes this difficult to address.

Sally Redux

Yes I think it's out of control. You've got to be pretty cold to think this is an OK way to live.

Don't think JG was sneering as such but are there other countries with such lax rules (and then head-scratching every time there's a shooting incident)?

It is also infecting Mexico, which has no chance of enforcing a ban on guns with the US supplying so many.

RoadWarriorFromLP

I don't think that most gun owners, the vast majority of whom will never use their guns for any ill purpose, see the linkage between the system that allows them to own guns and the role that same system plays in guns being misused by others.

Mrs Danvers

A very good point. I first thought this when going camping for the first time in the USA in an area where bears, Cougars etc could attack. We didnt have any dangerous or predatory animals in the UK.

I do have a couple of rifles and a 9mm in the house but these belong to my boyfriend. I also went for shooting lessons because I didn't want to flatly poo poo something I knew nothing about. I also think if there's something in my house I may as well learn to use it. I had an instructor who was excellent. There is never any excuse to say "I didn't know my gun was loaded" or to have dumb accidents or to have guns loaded and accessible to small children.

i could have gone for the concealed carry license but didn't because I can't think of a reason for me to need such a license. I also don't feel it's some sort of right to own a gun.

I do think the problem with so many gun related murders is easy accessibility but it is coupled with a very entitled and dangerous mindset.

Jerseygirl

Hunting...don't get me started about teaching children to kill animals...let alone hunting for sport. What sport is there in killing? I sort of understand it if a person hunts because they need the meat for food...but not for sport.