Stop using this stat. It's dropped 0% since 1999. That's 15 years with no advancement

Am I happy that regulation has increased public safety with respect to smoking? Yes.

Also- I know these kinds of distinctions don't mean much to you but the big difference between cigarettes and guns is that cigarettes tend to kill the user of the cigarettes and it is not their intended purpose. Guns are used to kill other people and it is their intended purpose.

By the way, you keep mentioning the 30K deaths every year and why that's not significant to you. What should also be mentioned is that you're only discussing deaths. In a quick search I see that, for instance, in 2010 while there was a little more then 30K deaths, there was also:

LINK

Furthermore, guns cause harm even if they don't kill people simply because of their power as a threat. Guns are used to aid in the commission of crimes even if someone isn't shot.
LINK

The reason that cigarettes don't get the coverage that guns do is because people can easily choose not to smoke or be around smokers. A person doesn't have to worry about some smoking nut coming in and murdering several of their kids with cigarettes. This is obvious to everyone but people like you.

Regarding gun regulation - its great that its dropped but, as people have pointed out, its easy to see how much better it could be. Its nice that you think 30K deaths and 70K non fatal injuries is good enough for you but others know that can be improved immensely. Furthermore - without guns, I'm willing to bet that other crimes would go down as well.

Please try to argue better - between your bad analogies, your moving the goalposts and continually saying things aren't regulated that are regulated, you're really bringing this thread title to life.

I'll state it again. I've favored restrictions, even ones that would have not shot whatever in my lifetime passing.

There is more talk on what would be cool to see happen, i.e. Japan culture, all out ban except law enforcement, only legalizing single shot shotguns to the public, than there is of what could actually work. Federally raising the age to buy a gun to 21 regardless of what it would do to overall crime simply would not pass. Too many "hard ons"

I believe mandatory training, (actual training) which includes, proper storage, operation, and better health examinations, have a better chance of going from an "idea" to pen and paper. Along with other things that I can talk about later.

Furthermore, I am way for concerned about lowering gun deaths in the US than you are.

So what?

JFC. How can someone talk about the intended purpose of an object in the face of overwhelming evidence that it's almost never used for that purpose?

If we are talking about killing other people then sucides should not be counted in the number of deaths we are discussing, which obviously cuts the number in half to about 12K (2012, I think). Smoking kills 48,000 people via second hand smoking. No one is scared to come to the US because of that....
That is already illegal.


So, its not about the number of deaths....its about fear of something that almost never occurs. Its basically saying you dont want people playing poker because they may lose quads to runner runner quads.


1 in 357 life times. I'm sorry, I do not see a reason to restrict something that is hardely ever used to kill someone. Obviously my opinion changes if there is some huge spike or at the local level where there is an appreciable differene from the other localities of similar size.

I'm not moving the goal post at all.....you guys talk about 30K being signifcant enough to warrant more federal regulation yet when presented there is stuff out there that kills way more peoeple, you piviot away from the this and start arguing intent....I'm maintained the same argument, the level of gun fear is disporporationae to the actual of harm.

A person does have to worry about some nut getting into an accident and killing your kids and it happens way more frequently. You have no problem taking your childern to day care but have a problem with someone owning a gun. Go tell a grieving mother her kids death while tragic was not as significant as senseless as a gun death because a car is needed and a gun is not.

Have you answered what an unacceptable level of gun deaths are yet you hypocritical piece of ****?

Meh. There isn't much movement on gun reform because the NRA sees any change in gun laws as the top of the slipper slope to "they're gonna take ma guns!" Don't try and pretend that the pro-gun crowd are the reasonable ones here.

Once again I do not think its good policy setting an arbitrary number or level of deaths. I do know that the current rate and ten year trend is acceptable when considering the population, on a federal level. I think there are several other factors that are much more important. You can call me a hypocrite but setting a defacto line in the sand has never been an argument of mine. So stop ****ing beating a straw-man. You obviously only care about trying to get an idiotic "gotcha" answer than discussing this reasonably.

So that's a no. Your premise is false so everything else you say is pointless.

Rulz- Should murder be against the law? Very, very few people get murdered.

First off,

Owning a ruger doesn't make you part of a "pro-gun" crowd. Nor does it make you unreasonable. If you think it does, then you are an idiot. I'd love to see more guns off the streets and stricter laws for those who handle them. Unfortunately, I may be in a lonely camp.

I am sure that a large percentage of gun-owners, who the hell knows how many, assume that if you trickle in a tiny bit of gun legislation, it will tornado into a complete ban of all guns. That's not helping the movement.

But if you want to make real headway in gun reform, you need to start discussing better ways to do so then what mostly has been introduced in ITT.

Making improvements means a lot.

I don't know where you live but gun violence in my city is very high. A little tweaking could be beneficial.

LOL. You are an idiot.

EDIT: As many as a jurisdictions electorate can tolerate.

Irrelevant question. We are talking about regulating an object not behavior.

Have you read my repeated insistance that this issue should be sorted out at the local level? If gun violence was on the rise in my neck of the woods, I would too, at the local level.

To a liberal a gun death is unaccetable, this is demonstrated time and time again in this thread. You can pass all the legislation in the world on the issue and if there are still gun deaths, they will continue to press for more and more regulation. Their crusade against guns is built entirely on idealism instead of any practical or rational argument. Its obvious they do not respect other peoples interest in guns and have an abnormal level of paranoia. No one calls for a health screen when purchasing booze or smokes or a car but for a gun....then we talk about "intended purpose to kill people" which guns are overwhelmingly never used for.

And there it is.

Welcome to Rulz real problem.

Nobody thinks we can end all gun death moron. Even I, who advocated for only single action guns, still understand that won't curb all gun violence.

You sure you have the right thread with these reasonable ideas and logic throughout your posts?

I've never hid my bias against liberals idealism and how it relates to gun control. Your liberal idealism says all gun deaths are bad, worse than any other kind of preventable death so off to the races you go.

The best thing you can do to curb murder rates with out infringing on peoples ability to buy a gun that will rarely harm a sole is to end the drug war/decriminalize drugs, focus on poverty and economic opportunities. If all the effort that's put into federal gun control went into these instead, you'd have an appreciable difference in poverty, gun violence and employment. You'd be able to cast a wider net, positively impact significantly more people. (Please do not say we can do everything, I'm kind of sick of this liberal myth as well because obviously were not doing it now)

You're wrong. But that's never stopped you from spouting inane bull**** before. No reason to assume it will now.

Lol. "I'm going to make a case about only being able to do one thing at a time, please don't say we can only do one thing at a time, because we seemingly have a tiny government that in no way can do multiple things at once."

You are such a ****ing toolbox

just figured it out, gangs isn't codeword for black people, but it is codeword for something...

When will Obama speak out against the REAL gang problem?