Originally Posted By WilliamK99 This is a very interesting article that shows that gun crimes have plunged in America yet many believe that it has risen. <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-crimes-pew-report-20130507,0,3022693.story" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/na...93.story</a> I have said before we need stricter laws governing the mishandling of personal firearms and possibly more stringent background checks, but I do not see the need for increased gun control like a national database or anything of the sort which many of called for. But aside from the initial findings, there were some other statistics I found fascinating as well. This article is worth a read. <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-crimes-pew-report-20130507,0,3022693.story" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/na...93.story</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>we need stricter laws governing the mishandling of personal firearms and possibly more stringent background checks<< I agree. There are so many gun deaths that are preventable, much of that could be achieved through better training in gun safety/handling/storage. Massacres like Newtown and Aurora are more complex and more difficult to prevent. I read recently that gun laws already on the books are enforced quite differently from place to place. It is interesting that the article in the study indicates that more stringent incarceration rates for gun crimes are part of the reason the overall number dropped.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Crimes of all type has fallen greatly from its 80's/early 90's high. It's no surprise that crimes committed with guns would be part of that. As with gun crimes specifically, most Americans believe crime in general has gone up, not down. <I read recently that gun laws already on the books are enforced quite differently from place to place.> It always amazes me that the NRA, when arguing against things like background checks, always says "we don't need new laws. We just need to enforce the ones we have." Then they turn around and make the head of the ATF subject to congressional approval (unlike ANY other comparable agency - this is not a cabinet-level position), meaning that we still don't have an ATF head. And they make sure Congress funds the ATF to as small a degree as possible. The ATF is, of course, the agency charged with... wait for it... enforcing our gun laws. And of course, expanded background checks aren't even really new law. It's just applying an existing law that already exists for gun stores to gun shows and the internet.
Originally Posted By ecdc I'll reiterate, we need a serious cultural shift in the way we view guns. If that doesn't have to come through new laws or new gun control, grand. But I'm skeptical. Part of the problem is some of us approach this from a radically different place. Whether gun owners want to hear this or not, the simple fact is: They don't need a gun. Period. End of story. They may want a gun. They may feel safer with a gun (they're wrong, but feelings are powerful). They may have a right to own a gun. But, they don't need a gun. And unlike their misplaced analogies to cars or swimming pools, guns are designed specifically to kill things. That's it. That's why they exist. Not so with just about any other consumer product, including cars and swimming pools. These ongoing issues that Americans have with guns, such as accidental shootings, mass shootings, domestic homicides, etc., are simply not replicated in other advanced countries where there are very few to no guns. I cannot escape that: Eliminate guns, you eliminate tens-of-thousands of gun deaths. Yes, yes, I know, it's not realistic here. But it's not realistic because we have millions of Americans who passively say that owning a gun is more important than ending tens-of-thousands of deaths. It's really that simple.
Originally Posted By Tikiduck The fact is, many people really do need to own a gun. Think about the small businesses who would be sitting ducks without the perception that they just may be armed. Like it or not, this is a gun society, and part of that is being able to defend yourself against the proliferation of guns. Your right ecdc, it is ugly, and it is wrong, but it is a fact. As I have said before, more than guns themselves, the big problem in America is that any idiot can own one.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>The fact is, many people really do need to own a gun.<< Again, no, they don't. You're starting with the same assumptions that the NRA always promotes: Criminals don't obey laws, criminals will always have access to unlimited guns. Ergo, responsible people need guns to defend themselves. Numerous other countries, from Japan to Great Britain, have shown that this is simply not the case. By creating an environment where it is extremely difficult to get a gun, then yes, even criminals struggle to get them.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Most Americans don't see gun deaths as a problem because it is outside their experience. I've personally known people who died in car accidents, from excessive drug or alcohol use, from cancer, from AIDS, etc. I've never personally known anyone who died (or was even injured) because of guns, even though I know many who own them. Unless you live in the inner city, most people probably never have.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Personally I don't need to own a gun. And the bipolar person or the person with the history of domestic violence, we'll he or she definitely doesn't need to own a gun. But the person who wants a gun for hunting or likes to go to the range. Follows the laws and regulations of getting a firearm, keeps it stored away properly, am I going to tell that person they don't need a gun? Probably not.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I've never personally known anyone who died (or was even injured) because of guns, even though I know many who own them. Unless you live in the inner city, most people probably never have.<< I don't live in the inner city and I know of 3 people personally in my life who died via guns. 2 were suicides, one was murdered -- likely her husband was involved in arranging this, but police have thus far been unable to make the case. When I was in elementary school, a classmate was shot in the face. He was in the house watching cartoons after school, and a couple of teenagers took a shotgun out of a parked police car and fired at the house just to see the windows blow out. The kid nearly died but survived but had his jaw wired, required extensive surgeries through the years.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<Whether gun owners want to hear this or not, the simple fact is: They don't need a gun. Period. End of story. They may want a gun. They may feel safer with a gun (they're wrong, but feelings are powerful). They may have a right to own a gun. But, they don't need a gun. And unlike their misplaced analogies to cars or swimming pools, guns are designed specifically to kill things. That's it. That's why they exist.>> You are exactly right, very well said.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>am I going to tell that person they don't need a gun? Probably not.<< I will happily do it then. Can we name any other consumer product that exists solely to maim or kill other human beings? I'm happy to say, "Yeah, you don't get to own a product which sole purpose is to kill others." Now, if that means we say rifles are fair game because they can be used for hunting, I'm cool with that. If we even want to say shotguns are legal because they can be used for skeet shooting, okay. But handguns? Assault rifles? They all ought to be outlawed except for use by law enforcement, and even that ought to be heavily regulated.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Using these statistics to bolster any argument against gun control is like saying we don't need to find a cure for cancer because we have less cancer deaths than before.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 I don't remember anyone using that article as an argument against gun control, I posted it because it was an interesting article.
Originally Posted By fkurucz I was thinking that fewer gun deaths could be interpreted that the limited gun control that we have has been working, and is an argument for more gun control
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I don't remember anyone using that article as an argument against gun control, I posted it because it was an interesting article." I didn't say that you did.
Originally Posted By utahjosh ecdc, did Americans ever NEED to own a gun? If so, at what point did that change?
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<But handguns? Assault rifles?>> Assault rifles I will agree that I don't see the reason behind Joe Q Citizen having one. But handguns I guess it would depend on the situation of why a person would need one. If a woman who's assaulted would like to carry one should we tell her no?
