Guns don't kill people ....

[wolf]

An assault weapon is one which you use to beat someone.

[Ibby]

Hence the scare quotes, since I couldn't be bothered to figure out what to call an assault rifle.

[wolf]

Pretty common anti-gun rhetoric there ...

• Require a background check prior to the transfer of a firearm between private parties;

Most states operate the same way for long arms (rifles and shotguns). On a quick search I have been unable to locate the specific statute addressing this for Vermont. It is, however, illegal in all states to knowingly transfer a firearm to someone who is legally not allowed to possess one, or to a person whom you know intends to commit a crime.

• Prohibit the transfer or possession of assault weapons, 50 caliber rifles, or large capacity ammunition magazines;

As stated previously, an "assault weapon" is one you hit someone with. Most cap and ball weapons as .50 caliber or more. A shorter magazine makes things more dangerous rather than safer for self defense ... you have to reload more often.

• Require firearms dealers or purchasers to obtain a state license;

Again, most states don't. Firearms dealers are Federally licensed and have to comply with Federal Law with respect to record keeping, background checks, and sales records.

• Require the reporting of mental health commitments or adjudications for firearm purchaser background checks;

It's on the federal form. This is usually pushed forth as an issue because crazy people are perceived as scarier and more violent than "normal" people. They aren't.

• Limit the number of firearms that may be purchased at one time;

Most places don't. It's a commercial transaction. I can buy as many boxes of ceral at one time as I want.

• Impose a waiting period on firearm purchases;

Most states either don't have or have dropped waiting periods. In the face of an imminent threat or natural disaster, or unnatural one (riots), you're screwed rather than benefitted by this law. Sometimes it's called a "cooling off" period. Think about it. If you're pissed off enough to want to kill someone, will you really be that much calmer three to five days from now?

• Regulate unsafe handguns (“junk guns” or “Saturday night specials”)

They aren't "unsafe." They are inexpensive. They do exactly what they are made to do. You pull the trigger and it goes bang. "Saturday Night Special" is a name given to these sorts of weapons when in the 1800s they were banned to prevent blacks from owning firearms.

• Allow local governments to regulate firearms;

Local governments can't enact a law that contradicts state law. That applies to ALL laws, not just firearms law.

• Require any permit or license for the carrying of concealed firearms.

Yay for them." Vermont Carry" is much desired in the pro-gun lexicon. Alaska has it too. No wild west gunfights. How about that? The move, incidentally, is to refer to it as "Constitutional Carry."

[Ibby]

I'm not convinced that gun ownership specifically causes lower crime in Vermont. In fact I would argue that the high popularity of hunting causes unnecessary accidental firearms injury or death... but that's irrelevant to gun control issues specifically I think. I think that there is a correlation between the high gun ownership and the culture of vermont, which is what more broadly contributes to the very low violent crime rates in the state. Much more important is the fact that the rural communities that make up most of vermont's population are so small that everyone knows everyone, and so violent crime is almost only committed between people who know eachother - where tighter gun control wouldn't help. Vermont is a state with perfect conditions for Vermont Carry to be safe. I wouldn't support Vermont Carry in, say, Maryland, or New Jersey, or any other densely-populated state, or any big, crime-ridden city, to be honest.

[Lamplighter]

Firearm deaths appear to be more closely related to whether
the state's voted-share was for McCain (high) or Obama (low)

The Atlantic
By Richard Florida
Jan 13 2011

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Ibram

I think that there is a correlation between the high gun ownership and the culture of vermont, which is what more broadly contributes to the very low violent crime rates in the state. Much more important is the fact that the rural communities that make up most of vermont's population are so small that everyone knows everyone, and so violent crime is almost only committed between people who know eachother - where tighter gun control wouldn't help. Vermont is a state with perfect conditions for Vermont Carry to be safe. I wouldn't support Vermont Carry in, say, Maryland, or New Jersey, or any other densely-populated state, or any big, crime-ridden city, to be honest.

Agree completely. I don't think guns cause or reduce violent crime, but depends on the culture. Cultures were guns are used as a method of attaining and holding power will tend to lead to more gun deaths. Cultures were guns are respected will tend to reduce them.

[footfootfoot]

Here is a pdf from CDC showing the top 15 causes of death in the US over several years broken down into excruciating detail.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/dea...09_release.pdf

One thing is pretty clear, people die from firearm related injuries. But not that many as compared to the other forms of death

Assault (homicide) with a firearm counts for just under 11,500 deaths in 2009.

Intentional self harm (Suicide) by firearm about 18,700 (I would leave this out as a determined suicide will find other means.)

Aortic Dissection claimed about 10,500 in 2009.

For comparison's sake Aortic dissection is described as

Originally Posted by http://www.iradonline.org/about.html

... a rare but serious condition that mostly occurs in men aged 60 to 80.

I am finding it very hard to think of guns, as they exist in this country, as being particularly lethal to the population.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

One thing is pretty clear, people die from firearm related injuries. But not that many as compared to the other forms of death


I am finding it very hard to think of guns, as they exist in this country, as being particularly lethal to the population.

So, if firearms aren't a huge problem, why do people want a firearm to protect themselves from being shot to death?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

So, if firearms aren't a huge problem, why do people want a firearm to protect themselves from being shot to death?

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Need I continue with this stupid rationale?

apparently so.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

So, if firearms aren't a huge problem, why do people want a firearm to protect themselves from being shot to death?

Maybe for the same reason I have excellent auto and homeowners insurance even though I haven't needed to use it. You know that whole, better to have it and not need it bit...

At the end of the day there are a lot of people who hate guns for a variety of reasons. In my opinion most of those reasons tie back to a fear of guns because of unfamiliarity. I don't care if you don't want to own a gun. If they scare you, you shouldn't have one. I fully support laws designed to keep handguns out of the hands of convicted felons. I don't support laws designed to make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase and maintain firearms. I'll be damned if your fear of something leads to my not being able to protect my family should the need arise.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

So, if firearms aren't a huge problem, why do people want a firearm to protect themselves from being shot to death?

Is that why people want firearms?

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Here is a pdf from CDC showing the top 15 causes of death in the US over several years broken down into excruciating detail.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/dea...09_release.pdf

One thing is pretty clear, people die from firearm related injuries. But not that many as compared to the other forms of death

Assault (homicide) with a firearm counts for just under 11,500 deaths in 2009.

Intentional self harm (Suicide) by firearm about 18,700 (I would leave this out as a determined suicide will find other means.)

Aortic Dissection claimed about 10,500 in 2009.

For comparison's sake Aortic dissection is described as
Originally Posted by http://www.iradonline.org/about.html

I am finding it very hard to think of guns, as they exist in this country, as being particularly lethal to the population.

Once again this is non-comparative thinking:

It's only useful if by changing A, there is a causal change in B.
For a (hypothetical) example:
- suicide by gun does happen
- attempted suicide by gun does happen
- but, of the attempted suicides by gun, only 10% are later successful
Therefore, if you prevent an attempted suicide, there's a good chance you have prevented successful suicide.

Here is my misquote:
"When one person dies it is a tragedy, when thousands die it's a statistic."

I urge everyone to look beyond gun "deaths"
Look at the numbers of injuries, and specifically "unintended" incidents
For example, the numbers of Emergency Room visits related to guns.

Also, look at the use of guns as intimidators of women, and/or "domestic violence"
- threats of suicide
- threats to kill the wife/girl friend
- threats to kill the children


California found 66% of the battered women in shelters had been intimidated with a gun.

A national random survey found more hostile gun displays against women in the home
—primarily by intimate partners—
than self-defense gun uses in the home by women or anyone else.

Children do find guns...
If you ever have children in your home, are your guns already safe from them ?
If your children visit other homes, do you FIRST ask if there are any guns in that home?

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

California found 66% of the battered women in shelters had been intimidated with a gun.

For that to be even a remotely useful statistic you should probably ask how many were threatened with a legally owned gun. I'm certain some of them were, maybe even a large percentage. I'm also confident that anyone who batters his wife would be just as likely to use his hand, frying pan, or wrench.

Those are strawman arguments setup so you can say, "if we had tougher gun laws or better yet no guns, no women would be abused". *buzzzzz* Thanks for playing, but guess again.

People kill each other. They've done it for a long time and apparently without guns if you believe the whole Cain v Abel bit.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Once again this is non-comparative thinking:

It's only useful if by changing A, there is a causal change in B.
For a (hypothetical) example:
- suicide by gun does happen
- attempted suicide by gun does happen
- but, of the attempted suicides by gun, only 10% are later successful
Therefore, if you prevent an attempted suicide, there's a good chance you have prevented successful suicide BY FIREARM. Where there's a will, there's a way.

Here is my misquote:
"When one person dies it is a tragedy, when thousands die it's a statistic."

I urge everyone to look beyond gun "deaths"
Look at the numbers of injuries, and specifically "unintended" incidents
For example, the numbers of Emergency Room visits related to guns. Still very small. CDC reports on that.

Also, look at the use of guns as intimidators of women, and/or "domestic violence"
- threats of suicide
- threats to kill the wife/girl friend
- threats to kill the children


California found 66% of the battered women in shelters had been intimidated with a gun. A useless statistic. 66% of how many women? 100? 1000? I know that even one is too many, but abusers will use any tool at their disposal. Lack of having a weapon won't change an underlying mindset. The other thing missing from that statistic is did it happen once in their life or seven times a day?

A national random survey found more hostile gun displays against women in the home
—primarily by intimate partners—
than self-defense gun uses in the home by women or anyone else. That's only because women don't listen.

Children do find guns...
If you ever have children in your home, are your guns already safe from them ? YES. The same is true for bleach, solvents, and so forth.
If your children visit other homes, do you FIRST ask if there are any guns in that home? I admit, I hadn't thought of that, but I have taught my kids what to do if they ever find a firearm.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

A useless statistic. 66% of how many women? 100? 1000?
I know that even one is too many, but abusers will use any tool at their disposal.
Lack of having a weapon won't change an underlying mindset.
The other thing missing from that statistic is did it happen once in their life or seven times a day?

FWIW, what difference does it make how often ?
Is once enough, or does the intimidator get one freebee, or two, or... ?

Here is data from the Abstract:

Am J Public Health. 2004 Aug;94(8):1412-7.
Weapons in the lives of battered women.
Sorenson SB, Wiebe DJ.
School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles

OBJECTIVES:
We assessed weapon use in intimate partner violence and perspectives on hypothetical firearm policies.

METHODS:
We conducted structured in-person interviews with 417 women in 67 battered women's shelters.

RESULTS:
Words, hands/fists, and feet were the most common weapons used against and by battered women.
About one third of the battered women had a firearm in the home.
In two thirds of these households, the intimate partner used the gun(s) against the woman,
usually threatening to shoot/kill her (71.4%) or to shoot at her (5.1%).
Most battered women thought spousal notification/consultation regarding gun purchase
would be useful and that a personalized firearm ("smart gun") in the home would make things worse.