[dinopello]

So what would be safer for all of us: banning guns or banning bad drivers? Obviously banning bad drivers would save many more lives then banning guns, right? So setting knee jerk emotions aside which would you vote for first: banning firearms or bad drivers?

There are more gun deaths (32000) than traffic deaths (30000). You need to get another reason to not ban guns.

Maybe so, but think about how many traffic death there would be if we didn't require competency-based licensing of drivers, restrict how fast you could drive, and will suspend or revoke your right to drive if you break the rules. We require vehicle safety inspection and all sorts of vehicle safety measures like seat belts, air bags, anti-lock brakes and have laws that require seatbelt use and prohibit driving while texting etc. Even with all that we require every driver to have insurance in the event their vehicle is involved in a crash that results in damage, injury or death. So driving does seem to be more deadly since we don't require hardly anything to have guns so you have a bunch of yahoos that don't know the first thing about their safe use or storage or anything and STILL the number of deaths is pretty even.

[Hawkcreek]

Does the 32 K gun deaths include suicides by gun?
And how many of the gun deaths were by police?
And how many were by gangs against other gang members, or in drug sales?
Since I am not buying or selling drugs, don't plan on suicide, and try not to piss off the police, I think guns are MUCH safer than many drivers I have seen on the road.
But if I am caught in a crossfire between gangs, I do plan on returning fire.

[Ibon]

But if I am caught in a crossfire between gangs, I do plan on returning fire.

As you are running away I hope.

[Cog]

But if I am caught in a crossfire between gangs, I do plan on returning fire.

As you are running away I hope.

That is generally the safest play if you can use some cover and disengage. But like anything, a defensive gun use is unique to each set of circumstances.

[onlooker]

Personally, I would feel alot safer if their were no guns around. The 2nd amendment is long passed having any utility. From Ghung descriptions and my own opinion, their are some people out there who should have be carrying or owning guns. Having said that everyone has a right to defend themselves so because guns are readily available, law abiding persons should thus have a right to bear a firearm. Your appeal to a right though is quixotic as their are now many people around who do not have access or ability to have things which we would deem as a right, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Umm sounds familiar. I do not think it is helpful for humans to dwell on rights, nothing in life is guaranteed! Just thank God or your lucky stars for whatever you do have.

[Hawkcreek]

Just read a good article on Zero Hedge about gun regulation.
One interesting factoid related to some of the preceding posts:
"The government’s own numbers tell us that 3.8 people per 100,000 in the US die each year from non-suicide gun violence. Terror-related deaths are effectively 0.0.

Meanwhile, 11.6 per 100,000 die in traffic related deaths. A whopping 169.8 people per 100,000 die from heart disease."

Link to the article is:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-09/heres-what-happened-when-venezuela-imposed-gun-control-laws

[Newfie]

I think it would s interesting in combination with other some of the comments in the immigration thread about how some ethnicities do not integrate but build their own enclaves with their own legal system. Now allow them to arm and they develop their own ethnic militias.

Not arguing for or against, just what I observe.

It strikes me that th answer is to regulation is this....many are for it...once they have their own guns. It is looking like it will not happen as long as we are afraid of them, insert group name as needed. Thus it all seems a moot point. We are an Armed society, we must deal with it.

[Cog]

The American people have spoken quite loudly about what they think of efforts to restrict gun sales and Obama in general. Freedom is a wonderful thing. Oh and this doesn't count face to face personal sales which don't go through the NIC system except in the five states that require such things.

I look for sales to go even higher in 2016. Election year and all.

http://www.newsweek.com/gun-background- ... ord-381993
For the fifth month in a row, the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has processed applications from a record number of people looking to buy guns.

There were more than 1.795 million gun background checks performed in September, a 20 percent jump from the previous high for the month, set in September 2012, and May, June, July and August also saw record numbers. Firearms companies’ stock prices have shot up exponentially as well: according to The Guardian. Smith & Wesson’s shares have increased by 80 percent this year, and Sturm, Ruger & Co’s have gone up 60 percent.

The NICS has processed more than 15 million gun background checks in 2015, and while gun background checks are not universal, they are typically seen as a comparable barometer for how many guns have been sold.

[Newfie]

So what about Ben Carsons assertions re: gun control in Nazi Germany?

It's an interesting take on the subject.

I was thinking about this in the context of the current Migration into Europe. The good people of Europe are not used to being armed. I suspect that the immigrants are largely young men who have come from conflict zones where they have been around or participated in fighting and who have a very different attitude towards being armed.

Is that true?

Carson was quizzed on CNN over comments in his new book, A More Perfect Union: What We the People Can Do to Reclaim Our Constitutional Liberties, which cites Nazi Germany to argue that the right to bear arms should not be curtailed.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked him: “Just clarify, if there had been no gun control laws in Europe at that time, would six million Jews have been slaughtered?”

Carson replied: “I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed … I’m telling you that there is a reason that these dictatorial people take the guns first.”

[onlooker]

The American people at least some of them are dumb period.

[Newfie]

The American people at least some of them are dumb period.

That is true of people everywhere. What was the point you were trying to make?

[onlooker]

That those who support gun ownership without manifesting any flexibility are dumb! How many more mass killings will it take to move the needle?

[Subjectivist]

That those who support gun ownership without manifesting any flexibility are dumb! How many more mass killings will it take to move the needle?

Sounds like a totally inflexible closed mind you have there onlooker. You should look in the mirror before declaring anyone who disagrees with you names.

[Cog]

That those who support gun ownership without manifesting any flexibility are dumb! How many more mass killings will it take to move the needle?

What sort of gun laws are you after to stop mass killings?

[onlooker]

Funny guys we have a thread going on in the Open Topics forum about a new Orientation in regards to flexibility in ones position and room for common ground and compromise. That is exactly what anti-gun advocates have been trying to do. We are asking for common sense Federal laws requiring such things as background checks and outlawing of combat style guns. But no the NRA and those who align with it do not wish to here about it and simply say we are protected by the 2nd amendment. So what we have is a hodgepodge of different regulations and laws governing different states. Who is the inflexible one? I posted related to that inquiry about orientation that I am willing to compromise on anything except questions of morality. Well to me guns are a question of morality so I and others will not budge we want less guns out there not more.

[Cog]

How do you plan on going about having less guns in society? By most estimates there are already around 300 million of them out there in private hands. And I'm sure you are aware that a NIC check is already mandatory for every gun sold by a FFL.

What exactly is a combat style gun? Define it for me.

[Cog]

A combat-style gun is scary wary and has lots of bullets and other mean things.

LOL I thought that was going to be the definition.

A little table showing the leading methods to commit homicide. Not surprisingly, rifles are the least preferred gun to kill someone with. More people are killed by shotguns and not even Obama wants to ban them. It is even outranked by fists, blunt objects, and knives. As scary as an AR-15 rifle is to some on the left, it is rarely used in a homicide.

From the FBI

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... 9-2013.xls

[onlooker]

A combat-style gun is scary wary and has lots of bullets and other mean things.

I have a question what type of animal are hunters hunting with these firearms "Woolly Mammoths"
Also, what home invader do they wish to bring down, Tyrannosaurs Rex

[Cog]

Coyotes, deer, and feral hogs are hunted very successfully using a AR-15. By the way the acronym AR stands for Armalite Rifle not assault rifle as some people believe.

The AR-15/M4 variant is an excellent home defense gun. The .223/5.56 round is a bit underpowered for larger game than deer. I would recommend 7mm magnum or 30.06 for hunting anything larger than a deer. Unless you are using frangible .223/5.56 rounds, then the penetration of 00 Buckshot and .223/5.56 is about the same when we are talking about sheetrock and wood boards in a home setting. Frangible bullets are better for home defense, as they won't over-penetrate a target in an indoor setting.