NY Proposal to Screw Gun Owner's a Little Bit Further

[Courier]

Read here about the number of guns in the USA, there are so many of them and its high gun death rate...

And yet many nations in the world have a MUCH higher murder rate than the USA, but a much lower gun ownership rate.

There is no correlation between gun ownership rates and murder or suicide rates.

 

[jimbob]

Yes, if you ignore about 6.3 billion people in other nations, the USA has a high murder rate.

No,

The homicide rate correlates well with wealth - poorer countries have more homicides.

The US bucks the trend. It has a high homicide rate for such a wealthy country.
Trinidad and Tobago does because of its position and the Caribbean drugs trade.

Equatorial Guinea bucks the trend because it is actually a poor country with a very rich elite - it scores badly on the Human Development Index

Luxembourg has a population of half a million, so a single homicide equates to a rate of 0.2 per hundred thousand, and there is bound to be noise on that level.

I am not sure about Kuwait.

ETA: adding graph as it is on previous page of the thread:

 

[BStrong]

I looked at the information so generously provided by the Census Bureau, and other official sources. Unless you can provide evidence that they're in some kind of high conspiracy to cover up 'the truth', that should be accurate enough.

Incidences involving cars and guns are way down since the nineties. What ever it is that brought that down we should keep on doing it, obviously.

But yeah, traffic fatalities and gun fatalities aren't very far apart from each other at all. There were 35,000 traffic fatalities and 30,000 gun fatalities in 2009, without accounting for such things as suicides.

Something like 80% of the country's population are licensed car owners. Think about it! Over three hundred million Americans operating cars on the road day after day, sometimes for hours on in each and every day! Despite this there are only about five million accidents each year and a mere fraction of that in fatalities.

How many licensed gun owners are there in comparison? My most accurate research seems to put it somewhere between 30-45% of the population and only a small portion of that population are CCW holders. Most gun owners own more than just the one gun but only spend an hour or two using their guns a week at best.

The conclusion is quite clear, isn't it?

What the hell is a licensed gun owner?

An individual with NFA weapons and devices? carry license holder? Licensed dealer?

Rather than get caught up in that, how about you go back to your 5 million accident number and compare that to all firearms related injury and death numbers and run your guzintas.

 

[smartcooky]

All figures for USA, most recent available stats

Rate of Gun ownership: 88.8 per 100 people (89%)
Rate of Car ownership: 90.8 per 100 people (91%)
- about the same

Number of deaths by guns (annually): ~ 32,167
Number of deaths by cars (annually): ~ 32,572
- about the same

On the face of it, this seems straightforward. Deaths per capita from guns seems about the same as deaths per capita from cars.

However, this does not take into account the amount of time people spend firing guns compared with the amount of time they spend in cars

Hours spent travelling in cars (annually): 541 hours per person per year (just over 10 hours per week)
Hours spent shooting firearms (annually): 1.2 to 1.9 hours per person per year.
(one to two minutes per week)

Now the picture becomes more clear. The death rate from gun use is between 280 and 450 times greater than it is for car use.

 

[monty1]

All figures for USA, most recent available stats

Rate of Gun ownership: 88.8 per 100 people (89%)
Rate of Car ownership: 90.8 per 100 people (91%)
- about the same

Number of deaths by guns (annually): ~ 32,167
Number of deaths by cars (annually): ~ 32,572
- about the same

On the face of it, this seems straightforward. Deaths per capita from guns seems about the same as deaths per capita from cars.

However, this does not take into account the amount of time people spend firing guns compared with the amount of time they spend in cars

Hours spent travelling in cars (annually): 541 hours per person per year (just over 10 hours per week)
Hours spent shooting firearms (annually): 1.2 to 1.9 hours per person per year.
(one to two minutes per week)

Now the picture becomes more clear. The death rate from gun use is between 280 and 450 times greater than it is for car use.

Good work digging that out smartcooky! I had no idea it was nearly that bad!

 

[tyr_13]

How many hours are spend owning a firearm a year? Or being near enough to access it? That's simply an invalid definition of time spent 'at risk' being used.

 

[Mudcat]

You're the one who brought up the numbers of deaths between the two, not me. I just want you to understand WHY we insure vehicles. They're INCREDIBLY dangerous. More so that firearms. I guarantee that. More people are hurt and injured in or with cars, than firearms.

Okay, I'll attempt to address this portion bit by bit. Please bear with me.

I brought up the number of deaths because gun lovers bring up the fact that guns may be dangerous but so are cars. Thus we need numbers.

I know why we insure vehicles. I'm trying to explain to explain to gun lovers why guns should be insured too. Maybe I'm not using enough single syllable words?

Point out where anyone has claimed that cars are not dangerous.

I think I've already successfully demonstrated that it is guns that are more dangerous than cars. And I'm sick and tired of it. Want to prove that guns are safer? Then get to it!

No, I get it just fine. When faced with a fact that you cannot even BEGIN to rebut, you want to dismiss the argument as semantics. We call that dodging.

That's rich coming from you. Instead of countering facts with something more substantial you try to negate them by saying that owning one is a right and one is a privilege. That's not even a skillful dodge, it's weak and pathetic.

What's the point? You think the cost of owning a gun compared to a car is relevant? It's not.

And here we have hand waving. I already explained why the comparison is valid. You weren't paying attention. I expect you still aren't and will just do more hand waving instead of actually addressing the points.

What the hell is a licensed gun owner?

...What? It's a gun owner, licensed to own certain types of restricted guns, like handguns for example. I can't count people that just own long arms because, as far as I know, those don't require having a license to own.

Why aren't licenses required for those, by the way?

Rather than get caught up in that, how about you go back to your 5 million accident number and compare that to all firearms related injury and death numbers and run your guzintas.

Here we have a tale of two extremes. There are, with no argument, far more traffic accidents than there are gun incidents. Problem is, incidences with guns are more likely to end in fatalities.

To further complicate maters is... Well, I been over this already. Long story: the obvious conclusion is that guns are more dangerous than cars. Short story: some gun lover will try to hand wave this all away by bringing up rights and privileges as if that actually addresses anything.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Name a single instance where a person directs speech at a crowd or even a single person and it causes them to die with nothing else than speech and I'll concede the debate entirely.

Totally irrelevant. It is a right, just like the other 9 in the Bill of Rights. To place a stricture on one opens the door to place a stricture on all of them.
How about "church insurance"? Churches have been known to take arms against the Federal government in the past (remember the Mormons?),to murder US citizens (The Peoples Temple) so using exactly the same theory, would it not be permissible to require churches to provide insurance against wrongful acts?
Or 4th Amendment insurance? Criminals regularly use the 4th Amendment to shield them from conviction. How about requiring all citizens to purchase 4th Amendment insurance in the event they commit a wrongful act and claim protection from a search and seizure that is found to be legal by the courts?
6th Amendment insurance? It's a heavy burden on the taxpayers to have to absorb the cost of trials. Shouldn't everyone have to pay "trial insurance" to offset that cost?
Better still, 8th Amendment insurance. This costs the taxpayers a huge amount every year and could be offset by having insurance to cover the costs of people who intentionally fail to appear.
Now I'm sure you'll claim that all of those are ridiculous examples. They are. But they also employ the exact same theory in the proposed legislation that would require firearms insurance. They all require the citizen to pay a premium for what is a right, and the SCOTUS has already spoken on that matter.

Do we really need to go through this again? You must have some kind of memory problem here, because it's been explained to you, repeatedly, that owning and operating a car is much more expensive than a gun will ever be. It's to the point that you'll spend more per month for a car than you'll realistically spend on a year for a gun.
And by the same line of reasoning it's perfectly acceptable to impose a poll tax on voters.

It's unlikely you'll be unable to afford the premiums for a gun unless you're a risky gun owner.

And by the same line of reasoning it's perfectly acceptable to impose a poll tax on voters.

Are you a risky gun owner? Are many gun owners risky gun owners?

This is your idea of,"No emotion, just an obvious conclusion based upon observable data" ?

You aren't taking responsibility. House insurance only covers harm if harm is done within the confines of your house. Gun insurance is so much more. It covers harm where ever harm is done by your firearm. It covers you and protects you in case anything unforeseen happens. It's like having car insurance in that manner.

No, it's not. Automobile insurance won't cover you for an intentional misdeed.
The civil courts are a remedy for that. They are also a remedy for an intentional misdeed using a weapon.

This is so easy to understand I'm surprised this must be explained to you.

So is:

Because of this the burden would be on the government to prove that the measure is not only in order to achieve a compelling state interests, but also that the specific measure is necessary to do so. The level of intrusiveness or restriction has to be the minimum to achieve the compelling state interest.

Not too many big words there, but neither you or any of the other anti-gun advocates have addressed the issue yet, at least cogently.

 

[Mudcat]

And by the same line of reasoning it's perfectly acceptable to impose a poll tax on voters.

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion based upon that quoted bit. Your argument is rejected.

This is your idea of,"No emotion, just an obvious conclusion based upon observable data" ?

There was no conclusion and no emotion there, just a simple question. You care to answer it?

No, it's not. Automobile insurance won't cover you for an intentional misdeed.
The civil courts are a remedy for that. They are also a remedy for an intentional misdeed using a weapon.

And what is the remedy for accidental misdeed or a misdeed carried out with your gun by another? This is what the insurance is for. Why am I having to explain it for you for the umpteenth time?

Not too many big words there, but neither you or any of the other anti-gun advocates have addressed the issue yet, at least cogently.

The pro-gun side of this debate have some very good, compelling arguments against this proposed law. You really do, and I agree with you that the law as proposed is not going to work. I also agree that the law won't pass.

Some of your arguments, though, are complete rubbish.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion based upon that quoted bit. Your argument is rejected.

Reject what you will. The poll taxes were instituted to keep poor people (who were mostly black) from voting. The "insurance" also serves to keep poor people (many of whom are black) from possessing a firearm. An elderly person on a fixed income may be able to acquire a firearm ( gift, inheritance, or just a cheap one time purchase) but a yearly premium would constitute a burden they may not be able to bear. And that, irrespective of how much the premium actually is, makes it a stricture against their right to keep and bear arms, in exactly the same manner as a poll tax kept people from voting.
I have seen no reason for instituting such legislation than stands the test described regarding a compelling interest.

There was no conclusion and no emotion there, just a simple question. You care to answer it?

Really? You asked out of pure intellectual curiosity, with no intent to irritate or upset the person to whom you posed the question?
I have no problem answering the questions.
No.
I've carried a firearm for over 40 years. In that time I've injured no one accidentally, and (outside of Vietnam) I've only had to shoot one person, who was attempting to kill me. He survived the encounter and admitted it to the police, stating that while he only planned on burglarizing my home, when he realized someone was there he felt he couldn't leave any witnesses to identify him.
No.
There are estimated to be some 100 million firearm owners in the US and only a tiny fraction of them ever use a gun in a negligent or illegal manner.

And what is the remedy for accidental misdeed This is what the insurance is for. Why am I having to explain it for you for the umpteenth time?

For accidental misdeeds we have the civil courts. They seem to work well enough.

or a misdeed carried out with your gun by another?

You need to be more precise in your questions.
If you mean with your consent, or if you entrust someone with a firearm knowing or having reason to know they intend to use it for an unlawful purpose, then there are criminal statutes already on the books that cover this in detail. The same applies to automobiles, tools,etc.
Why should you be penalized for the misdeeds of another providing you had nothing to do with the misdeed itself? Do you feel that any item you own, if appropriated without your consent or knowledge and misused by another, should be grounds for civil litigation or criminal prosecution?
If your neighbor borrows a screwdriver and stabs someone to death with it, are you liable as the owner of the tool?
This is exactly the case you are attempting to make in regards to firearms.

Some of your arguments, though, are complete rubbish.

But not the one I'm making here.
Most of the rubbish I see in this debate is coming from the Anti-gun faction.

 

[smartcooky]

BTW, I just thought I might mention, for those who think I am some kind of rabid anti-gun nut, that I am actually a gun owner. I have two guns...

► A Remington 700, .270 centrefire bolt-action hunting rifle, which I have owned for about 30 years.

► A Beretta model 686 over-under shotgun, which I bought second hand a couple of years ago to replace my ageing 1957 Browning Superposed. I use it for only a couple of weeks each year for duck shooting.

I'm not against gun ownership, I'm against unrestricted gun ownership.

There is a BIG difference.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

BTW, I just thought I might mention, for those who think I am some kind of rabid anti-gun nut, that I am actually a gun owner. I have two guns...

► A Remington 700, .270 centrefire bolt-action hunting rifle, which I have owned for about 30 years.

► A Beretta model 686 over-under shotgun, which I bought second hand a couple of years ago to replace my ageing 1957 Browning Superposed. I use it for only a couple of weeks each year for duck shooting.

I'm not against gun ownership, I'm against unrestricted gun ownership.

There is a BIG difference.

A deadly military style sniper rifle capable of killing children hundreds of yards away and a deadly multi-barrel scatter gun capable of killing up to 30 children at one time, pumping buckshot into their tiny bodies at close range.
At least that's how the anti-gun faction would describe them. Especially if you put a polymer stock on the Remington.
I don't know anyone who is advocating unrestricted firearms ownership, not even the evil NRA.

 

[jimbob]

They are just proposing toothless control measures.

 

[smartcooky]

A deadly military style sniper rifle capable of killing children hundreds of yards away and a deadly multi-barrel scatter gun capable of killing up to 30 children at one time, pumping buckshot into their tiny bodies at close range.
At least that's how the anti-gun faction would describe them. Especially if you put a polymer stock on the Remington.
I don't know anyone who is advocating unrestricted firearms ownership, not even the evil NRA.

Question.

I am walking through the wilderness and I find a rifle lying just off the track.

In NZ or Australia, if I take it to the Police, they can they look up the serial number and find out who owns it?

Can they do that in the USA?

 

[tyr_13]

Not too many big words there, but neither you or any of the other anti-gun advocates have addressed the issue yet, at least cogently.

Maybe it's because it's almost four in the morning and I'm hugely stressed and tired, but did you just call me an anti-gun advocate based on my post pointing out how this proposition would fail basic constitutionality tests?

 

[Cylinder]

Question.

I am walking through the wilderness and I find a rifle lying just off the track.

In NZ or Australia, if I take it to the Police, they can they look up the serial number and find out who owns it?

Can they do that in the USA?

If it was reported lost or stolen, I suppose. There's no federal Title I firearm registry. Some states require firearm registration. For firearms less than 20 years old they can trace it to its original owner.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Maybe it's because it's almost four in the morning and I'm hugely stressed and tired, but did you just call me an anti-gun advocate based on my post pointing out how this proposition would fail basic constitutionality tests?

No, I was not inferring that you were an anti-gun advocate. I just used a line from one of your posts that was clear and easy to understand (regarding "compelling interest") that Mudcat obviously has a problem comprehending.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Nessie]

And yet many nations in the world have a MUCH higher murder rate than the USA, but a much lower gun ownership rate.

There is no correlation between gun ownership rates and murder or suicide rates.

I did not say there is a correlation, indeed the basic how many guns and how many murders is not even causal.

The issue is who has the guns? In the USA the answer is lots of unsuitable people and that is because there are so many guns and so many people who do not care who gets a gun that the unsuitable people have found it easy to get guns. That does not happen anywhere else in the Western World, where unsuitable people find it very hard to get a gun.

 

[Nessie]

How many hours are spend owning a firearm a year? Or being near enough to access it? That's simply an invalid definition of time spent 'at risk' being used.

The comparison should be time spent using it and smartcooky's calculation uses that. Otherwise by your calculation both are 100% and so no true comparison is possible.

 

[smartcooky]

The comparison should be time spent using it and smartcooky's calculation uses that. Otherwise by your calculation both are 100% and so no true comparison is possible.

Correct.

If you want to calculate how dangerous an object is to the person using it or to others while a person using it, you can only do so by accounting for the time during which its used.

A handgun sitting in a drawer is harmless (discounting the astronomically remote possibility that it might go off spontaneously) just as a car sitting in a garage is harmless (discounting the astronomically remote possibility that it might explode spontaneously).

Guns and cars are effectively, only potentially dangerous when they are being used, and that is what you have to measure.