Bleach violence, weapons of war, and the numbers game. What problem are we trying to solve? (Page 5)

but then why start the thread comparing apples and oranges and then pull the 2nd amendment card when you comparison doesn't add up..  also why exactly are the second amendment card waivers the same ones so quick to want to trample on 1, 4, 5, and 6 .. little consistency would be good

Where in the world did you get that? I don't want to trample on any of them. Why is it that is is so OK to trample on the 2A... but nobody can tough the other ones... that's the consistency I'm talking about.

I was not comparing to anything. If the goal is to stop deaths, then there are huge categories we could look at. If our goal is to stop crime, we look else where. what are we trying to fix with AWBs and mag limits. It will have very little effect of stopping another Sandy Hook.

Actually we differ on this one.. you exercising your rights actually does impact me, and every other person. We live in a society and not individual worlds..  since I just drove home from work, someone elses driving impacts my driving .. I will explain below  

Name one thing my guns have ever done to you. Tell me how me exercising my rights has effected you in any what so ever. Tell me how any law abiding citizen exercising their rights has had any effect on you what so ever.

 Yes you can. Amend the Constitution. There is a process for that.

Its funny that you try to paint me into the corner as a gun control advocate, I actually am not. I do vulnerability analysis and mitigation for a career, I am all about risk..  so I am actually into risk reduction, and statistically it has been shown over and over again that an increase in weapons increases the risks of gun deaths, just like a reduction reduces gun deaths.. I prefer the risk of some crazy shooter in a mall or school etc over the risk of every idiot on the street carrying, so you carrying your gun actually does impact me through increased risk .. pure and simple risk.. I don't actually care that much about guns as a form of death, since in the US the risk is still extremely low, but I do poke my head if I see things that can turn society riskier or see a lobby such as the gun lobby that actually doesn't care about an improved society, but instead care about "their guns" .. hard to argue against when you have the gun lobby in the mid 90's pushing restrictions on CDC funding of gun research into the budget.

I'm 100% with Felton. Growing up in Ukraine (Soviet Union at first), there was a complete ban on anything but the hunting weapons. I grew up as a hunters daughter. The hunting weapon was plenty enough to deter anyone from braking into out inner city condo. In fact, we never had an attempt to rob us, or get broken into. May be it was because we did not own a huge house where if anyone is attacked and screams, no one is there to hear it, and come to help. Living close to one's neighbors was the biggest defense because the bad guy would never know what neighbor is home at any given time. I still refuse single family homes because living close to my neighbors in tight communities feels right to me. Plus, i'm too busy training on weekends to take care of any large backyards.

Then the Old Order in Ukraine broke down, and the guns became available everywhere. Guess what happened? People started getting shot left and right. The country went from zero gun violence, to a crazy Wild West outbreak. It was not fun, let me tell you. Actually it was one of the contributing factors in my decision to take my three years old son and immigrate to the USA ASAP.

If you get licensed to operate a vehicle and get re-licensed all the time, why object to get licence, invasive background check, and invasive mental history check to operate a killing object?

Lastly, no gun supporting friend of mine wants to answer this question for some reason... if you intend to protect yourself from a "tyrant" government, at what point you deem the government a "tyrant" and start shooting? 

I was not comparing to anything. If the goal is to stop deaths, then there are huge categories we could look at. If our goal is to stop crime, we look else where. what are we trying to fix with AWBs and mag limits. It will have very little effect of stopping another Sandy Hook.

[/qoute]

Name one thing my guns have ever done to you. Tell me how me exercising my rights has effected you in any what so ever. Tell me how any law abiding citizen exercising their rights has had any effect on you what so ever.

[/quote]

 Yes you can. Amend the Constitution. There is a process for that.

Its funny that you try to paint me into the corner as a gun control advocate, I actually am not. I do vulnerability analysis and mitigation for a career, I am all about risk..  so I am actually into risk reduction, and statistically it has been shown over and over again that an increase in weapons increases the risks of gun deaths, just like a reduction reduces gun deaths.. I prefer the risk of some crazy shooter in a mall or school etc over the risk of every idiot on the street carrying, so you carrying your gun actually does impact me through increased risk .. pure and simple risk.. I don't actually care that much about guns as a form of death, since in the US the risk is still extremely low, but I do poke my head if I see things that can turn society riskier or see a lobby such as the gun lobby that actually doesn't care about an improved society, but instead care about "their guns" .. hard to argue against when you have the gun lobby in the mid 90's pushing restrictions on CDC funding of gun research into the budget.

Please tell me what "idiot" carrying has ever done to you. Please show me the stats on accidental shootings by concealed carriers. Please show me the research that says people carrying increases your risk of being shot in any meaningful way. Please show me how many deaths and injuries were caused by law abiding citizens carrying in public.

All that is is ridiculous hyperbole and assumptions.

I trust Harvard School of Health as an independent source for study.. so lets see

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature.Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

Then I'm lost... what is your opinion on the topic? What are we trying to solve, and how can we do that?

Those studies are not what I asked for. If there was not a single gun in America, and there was one gun on the other side of the world, there is a statistical chance of a gun death, and you being one of 6 billion plus have a statistical chance of being that one... that is not what I asked.

Show me the number of cases of carrying gun owners in public that accidentally shot somebody. Show me the number of cases where "some idiot" shot somebody in public by accident.

Your studies above, pointed to homicides... I didn't ask for criminal acts. I asked for instances where law abiding citizens shot somebody. Since a lawful shooting is justified, that pretty much leaves us with accidental shooting. I know 851 people died last year of accidental shootings. Show me how many of them were from owners carrying in public that posed a risk and shot some innocent bystander.

You can quote statistical possibilities all day... show me how my exercising my 2A right has harmed you in any way since: I prefer the risk of some crazy shooter in a mall or school etc over the risk of every idiot on the street carrying

Its funny that you try to paint me into the corner as a gun control advocate, I actually am not. I do vulnerability analysis and mitigation for a career, I am all about risk..  so I am actually into risk reduction, and statistically it has been shown over and over again that an increase in weapons increases the risks of gun deaths, just like a reduction reduces gun deaths.. I prefer the risk of some crazy shooter in a mall or school etc over the risk of every idiot on the street carrying, so you carrying your gun actually does impact me through increased risk .. pure and simple risk.. I don't actually care that much about guns as a form of death, since in the US the risk is still extremely low, but I do poke my head if I see things that can turn society riskier or see a lobby such as the gun lobby that actually doesn't care about an improved society, but instead care about "their guns" .. hard to argue against when you have the gun lobby in the mid 90's pushing restrictions on CDC funding of gun research into the budget.

Then I'm lost... what is your opinion on the topic? What are we trying to solve, and how can we do that?

Those studies are not what I asked for. If there was not a single gun in America, and there was one gun on the other side of the world, there is a statistical chance of a gun death, and you being one of 6 billion plus have a statistical chance of being that one... that is not what I asked.

Show me the number of cases of carrying gun owners in public that accidentally shot somebody. Show me the number of cases where "some idiot" shot somebody in public by accident.

Your studies above, pointed to homicides... I didn't ask for criminal acts. I asked for instances where law abiding citizens shot somebody. Since a lawful shooting is justified, that pretty much leaves us with accidental shooting. I know 851 people died last year of accidental shootings. Show me how many of them were from owners carrying in public that posed a risk and shot some innocent bystander.

You can quote statistical possibilities all day... show me how my exercising my 2A right has harmed you in any way since: I prefer the risk of some crazy shooter in a mall or school etc over the risk of every idiot on the street carrying

the study you ask for is a needle in a haystack, so you win..   I am not sure what, but I can mail a prize .. (FYI I am kidding here) .. to try to characterize my position:  I don't look for gun control, I don't want to ban guns.. I look at is a public health.. like how someone smoking in a restaurant increases my risk of cancer from second hand smoke, how someone drunk driving increases your chance of being killed driving home. my statement that potentially inflamed you means nothing more than this.. getting shot by a random shooter 1:10,000,000 (made this up), getting shot by a random gun owner in a society where everyone is armed 1:9,999,999 (also made this up) .. the first option is more attractive ..  if we are walking down a path and there is a split to two identical paths with respect to distance grade and destination, but I tell you the one on the right has a 1:10,000 chance of death, the one on the left is 1:9,999 .. do you go left or right?  If I push for more airbags in cars because it is shown to save more lives does that make me anti-car? to me it is about making society safer. Are we doing everything today to produce the safest weapon that reducing its potential for misuse, policies etc to provide for the best society possible, or can we do more?

edit: actually part of the problem finding a study like you want is that accidental shooting will most like get characterized as a homicide so it will be harder to find.. most likely you shoot someone accidentally you will be getting some type of charge against you

 Homicide is defined as a willfull diliberate act of killing someone...that isn't a accident, and it isn't manslaughter. You made a wimsical comment, but it is one that is repeated time and time again... that somehow millions of law abiding citizens being armed is somehow going to result is mass carnage... and usually the word "idiot" is worked in somewhere. There is simply no such data supporting such a claim. A homicde is a homicide. A defensive shooting, is a defensive shooting. An accident is an accident. That is exactly how they are reported.

one last edit to add to your original question which I am not actually opposed to with respect to assult weapons ban/clip size etc.. it is referenced from the wiki page on a good read titled Private Guns Public Health.. but back to the graphic.. it the policies today where about public health they should tackle hand guns based on the linked homicide chart (note how much lower "other guns" falls) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg

And hand guns have been singled out in places with very strict gun controls... Heller was brought before the SCOTUS from a hand gun ban. Rifles account for 3% of deaths... but those are what is targeted in the AWB. Semi-auto rifles are asubset of that catagory, yet we need to ban 100% of them, to tackle <3% of the problem 

I understand statistical probabilities. In a nation with 280-400 million guns depending who you listen to... we are going to have deaths by guns. You originally said my logic was flawed, and I disagree. Big suprise I know.

The other examples given have had measures taken to mitigate risk and misuse. Child proof caps. Yet, there are still very large numbers of deaths and injury caused by medications, chemicals, and motor vehicles. If you take an honest look at what is being proposed for gun control, then the argument comes up hollow because the same steps are not being proposed to stop higher deaths in other areas. And in this instance we are talking about accidental shooting deaths, not homicides. Same as poisonings, and car crashes. Product/comsumer safety issues.

You mentioned DUI... DUI has dropped a lot since the 70's and MADD. But last year 10,000 people were killed by drunk drivers... and yes, there are going to be children in that group. 10,000 people dead, yet 9000 people dead from gun crimes requires a national effort, and a admittedly a horrific shooting of 20 kids recieves direct POTUS intervention and action. And as stated in gun control arguments... the US is compared to other nations... yet other nations have much stricter DUI laws and much much lower DUI deaths. I see it as the same thing. And in your argument... using real numbers, I'm sure your statistical cance of being killed by a drunk driver is higher than being murdered by a gun... simply because of drive time and your proximity to high crime areas or not. Are we doing everything we can to stop DUI deaths? Do the lives of those 10,000 count less that the lives of 9000? And yes, I veiw driving drunk in this day and age attempted murder... and yes I have drove drunk.

So that is all my argument is. Are we treating other causes of death equal to guns? Are we taking the same steps and acton on activities or things that cause higher death rates? We both agree we should do what we can to get the numbers as low as possible and help prevent what we can. I do not know how much room for improvement we have with guns. More guns than ever, crimes dropping for 20 years now.

But things get really sticky with guns. They are not consumer products. They are not privleges. They are not subject to some arbitrary public safety argument. They are rights. Driving is not a right, nor is prescription medication or buying all the bleach you desire. We can regulate all of those out of existence if we so choose. But not guns.

And if we are going to attempt to regulate guns out of existence ( I accept that is not your position), then try regulating abortion, or voting, or due process out of existence and see how "unreasonable" and "uncompromising" people become. Yet gun owners are uncompromising, irresponsible, paranoid, idiots (not your words... well except idiots) that need to be controled.

Indeed, consistency would be nice.

And I agree above with you above here. And to clarify when I use the word idiot above, it is more a commentary on the process that someone adequately not trained to handle a weapon is around me the same way there is an idiot driver who can't operate a vehicle in a safe manner but is still driving past you on the interstate .. like for example the guy who passed me yesterday doing 110-125 in a 55