Guns

[myrkul]

The thing is, that suing someone after I'm dead doesn't bring me back to life. Throwing knives at people might not kill them, but it's risky. Do you think throwing knives at people is legal?

Yup, people do it all the time:

Drunk drivers kill thousands every year. Thus, drunk driving should be illegal. Prevention saves lives. Raising the insurance of the drunk driver will not bring me back to life.

I'm not arguing that prevention doesn't save lives. I'm arguing that prevention need not be coercive.

[nimda]

The thing is, that suing someone after I'm dead doesn't bring me back to life. Throwing knives at people might not kill them, but it's risky. Do you think throwing knives at people is legal?

Yup, people do it all the time:

rofl. I'm just going to assume you know what I meant.

Drunk drivers kill thousands every year. Thus, drunk driving should be illegal. Prevention saves lives. Raising the insurance of the drunk driver will not bring me back to life.

I'm not arguing that prevention doesn't save lives. I'm arguing that prevention need not be coercive.
[/quote]
How do you suggest we prevent drunk driving?

[myrkul]

How do you suggest we prevent drunk driving?

Well, just off the top of my head, insurance agencies could offer breathalyzer (or other test) ignition lockouts for policy discounts. There are probably many more options than I can think of staring at this screen.

Sure, this won't prevent all drunk driving, but neither does the current system. You said it yourself: "There are enough drunk drivers (about 1 in 10, but after midnight it's about 1 in 3) ready to kill me already." The benefit of my strategy is that it offers incentives to people when they're sober to take actions to prevent stupid actions when they're not. The current disincentive system relies on drunk people to decide not to do something stupid. I don't think I have to explain why that's a bad idea.

[nimda]

So back to guns, you want to incentivize (word?) proper gun usage, but not prohibit irresponsible gun handling?

[myrkul]

So back to guns, you want to incentivize (word?) proper gun usage, but not prohibit irresponsible gun handling?

That's the idea, yes.

Now, let's examine the case (to get away from that irrational fear I mentioned earlier) of a chainsaw juggler. Under ideal conditions, the chainsaw juggler harms no-one, not even himself. However, accidents happen, and well, it's a frigging chainsaw flying up in the air. What to do if it should land on someone? Clearly, this was improper handling of the chainsaw, and decidedly not it's intended usage model. The answer, in this case is clear: Hold the juggler accountable for his actions.

Now to translate that over to guns: If a man is doing something irresponsible with a firearm, there is a chance he may hurt someone. If he does, then we should hold him accountable for his actions. The end result of an accident (he hurts someone) is the same. Why should the response to that accident be any different?

Now, it should be noted that there is a clear difference between juggling a chainsaw and waving a chainsaw around menacingly, just as there is a difference between waving a gun around and, say, doing some exhibition-style pistol twirling. Waving a weapon around (any weapon) is a stupid move, and I'm not saying people should be doing that left and right. Someone who did that would (and should) get a fairly strong defensive response. But saying something is illegal opens a whole can of worms that, IMO, should not be opened for actions that do not cause harm to another person.

[FirstAscent]

So back to guns, you want to incentivize (word?) proper gun usage, but not prohibit irresponsible gun handling?

That's the idea, yes.

Now, let's examine the case (to get away from that irrational fear I mentioned earlier) of a chainsaw juggler. Under ideal conditions, the chainsaw juggler harms no-one, not even himself. However, accidents happen, and well, it's a frigging chainsaw flying up in the air. What to do if it should land on someone? Clearly, this was improper handling of the chainsaw, and decidedly not it's intended usage model. The answer, in this case is clear: Hold the juggler accountable for his actions.

Now to translate that over to guns: If a man is doing something irresponsible with a firearm, there is a chance he may hurt someone. If he does, then we should hold him accountable for his actions. The end result of an accident (he hurts someone) is the same. Why should the response to that accident be any different?

Now, it should be noted that there is a clear difference between juggling a chainsaw and waving a chainsaw around menacingly, just as there is a difference between waving a gun around and, say, doing some exhibition-style pistol twirling. Waving a weapon around (any weapon) is a stupid move, and I'm not saying people should be doing that left and right. Someone who did that would (and should) get a fairly strong defensive response. But saying something is illegal opens a whole can of worms that, IMO, should not be opened for actions that do not cause harm to another person.

Waving a pistol around as in pistol twirling and juggling chainsaws should only be doable with a license to perform and the requisite and approved insurance and safety measures in place - i.e someone making sure the performer is juggling the chainsaw a safe distance from the audience. This is not unreasonable.

Wave your pistol around on the sidewalk, or juggle your chainsaw in a crowd, and you deserve to be arrested or detained.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

So back to guns, you want to incentivize (word?) proper gun usage, but not prohibit irresponsible gun handling?

That's the idea, yes.

Now, let's examine the case (to get away from that irrational fear I mentioned earlier) of a chainsaw juggler. Under ideal conditions, the chainsaw juggler harms no-one, not even himself. However, accidents happen, and well, it's a frigging chainsaw flying up in the air. What to do if it should land on someone? Clearly, this was improper handling of the chainsaw, and decidedly not it's intended usage model. The answer, in this case is clear: Hold the juggler accountable for his actions.

Now to translate that over to guns: If a man is doing something irresponsible with a firearm, there is a chance he may hurt someone. If he does, then we should hold him accountable for his actions. The end result of an accident (he hurts someone) is the same. Why should the response to that accident be any different?

Now, it should be noted that there is a clear difference between juggling a chainsaw and waving a chainsaw around menacingly, just as there is a difference between waving a gun around and, say, doing some exhibition-style pistol twirling. Waving a weapon around (any weapon) is a stupid move, and I'm not saying people should be doing that left and right. Someone who did that would (and should) get a fairly strong defensive response. But saying something is illegal opens a whole can of worms that, IMO, should not be opened for actions that do not cause harm to another person.

Waving a pistol around as in pistol twirling and juggling chainsaws should only be doable with a license to perform and the requisite and approved insurance and safety measures in place - i.e someone making sure the performer is juggling the chainsaw a safe distance from the audience. This is not unreasonable.

Wave your pistol around on the sidewalk, or juggle your chainsaw in a crowd, and you deserve to be arrested or detained.

Sure, but in no reasonable case should there be a performance license in order for someone to buy a chainsaw in order to use it for it's intended purpose.  The same should (generally) be true for a (presumedly responsible adult) who desires to buy a firearm to be used for it's (legal) intended purpose, whether that is hunting & shooting or self-defense.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

(and yes, the premiums on a rocket launcher would probably be such that private individuals would not own them)

It's funny that you should mention this, as it's technically easier to get a Class II "Destructive Device" license from the BATF, in order to legally buy a bazooka or hand grenade, than it is to aquire a concealed carry permit in NYC.  I could do it within 6 months, if I had the money.

[myrkul]

(and yes, the premiums on a rocket launcher would probably be such that private individuals would not own them)

It's funny that you should mention this, as it's technically easier to get a Class II "Destructive Device" license from the BATF, in order to legally buy a bazooka or hand grenade, than it is to aquire a concealed carry permit in NYC.  I could do it within 6 months, if I had the money.

The mind, it boggles.

Sure, but in no reasonable case should there be a performance license in order for someone to buy a chainsaw in order to use it for it's intended purpose.  The same should (generally) be true for a (presumably responsible adult) who desires to buy a firearm to be used for it's (legal) intended purpose, whether that is hunting & shooting or self-defense.

Glad you answered this... I couldn't summon up the energy to even address that idiocy.

[nimda]

If chainsaws become a large factor in preventable American deaths, then I will support any bill which can reduce accidental chainsaw deaths. This includes certification for chopping wood, juggling, or any other chainsaw-related activity which kills a substantial number of people not operating chainsaws.

Fortunately for the residents of the USA, accidental non-operator chainsaw deaths aren't very common here.

Given that a relatively large number of people who don't own guns are injured or killed each year in gun accidents, I believe it worthwhile to attempt to reduce that number. If requiring free certification for legal gun ownership translates into every legal gun owner being educated on proper storage and handling of guns, then I support that, because I believe that the latter translates into fewer accidents and therefore fewer deaths.

[myrkul]

If chainsaws become a large factor in preventable American deaths, then I will support any bill which can reduce accidental chainsaw deaths. This includes certification for chopping wood, juggling, or any other chainsaw-related activity which kills a substantial number of people not operating chainsaws.

Fortunately for the residents of the USA, accidental non-operator chainsaw deaths aren't very common here.

Given that a relatively large number of people who don't own guns are injured or killed each year in gun accidents, I believe it worthwhile to attempt to reduce that number. If requiring free certification for legal gun ownership translates into every legal gun owner being educated on proper storage and handling of guns, then I support that, because I believe that the latter translates into fewer accidents and therefore fewer deaths.

Cars are heavily regulated, licensed, and require mandatory training. Yet they kill more people every year than do firearms. If you restrict it to accidents, they probably kill more people every day than firearms do in a year (Just a guess, but I'd wager the numbers would back me up)

[nimda]

If chainsaws become a large factor in preventable American deaths, then I will support any bill which can reduce accidental chainsaw deaths. This includes certification for chopping wood, juggling, or any other chainsaw-related activity which kills a substantial number of people not operating chainsaws.

Fortunately for the residents of the USA, accidental non-operator chainsaw deaths aren't very common here.

Given that a relatively large number of people who don't own guns are injured or killed each year in gun accidents, I believe it worthwhile to attempt to reduce that number. If requiring free certification for legal gun ownership translates into every legal gun owner being educated on proper storage and handling of guns, then I support that, because I believe that the latter translates into fewer accidents and therefore fewer deaths.

Cars are heavily regulated, licensed, and require mandatory training. Yet they kill more people every year than do firearms. If you restrict it to accidents, they probably kill more people every day than firearms do in a year (Just a guess, but I'd wager the numbers would back me up)

That's a perfectly fine fact. However, it doesn't make an argument. How many cars are there? How many hours per day are they used? How many people per day drive them while intoxicated? I'd be willing to bet that there are more car-hours than firearm-hours every day, and more intoxicated-car-hours than firearm-hours.

Cars ARE heavily regulated, licensed, and require mandatory training. And almost everyone uses them. If they weren't heavily regulated, licensed, etc, then I bet that there would be even more car deaths.

[myrkul]

That's a perfectly fine fact. However, it doesn't make an argument. How many cars are there? How many hours per day are they used? How many people per day drive them while intoxicated? I'd be willing to bet that there are more car-hours than firearm-hours every day, and more intoxicated-car-hours than firearm-hours.

Cars ARE heavily regulated, licensed, and require mandatory training. And almost everyone uses them. If they weren't heavily regulated, licensed, etc, then I bet that there would be even more car deaths.

In that case, those statistics need to be normalized... How many deaths from car accidents per 100,000 car owners vs. gun accidents per 100,000 gun owners.

I'm sure those numbers are out there somewhere. I'll take a look, here in a minute, if you don't beat me to the punch.

[nimda]

Please also provide statistics for chainsaw accidents per 100,000. And if possible, please provide each of the three statistics out of 100,000 operation hours, as well. My commute isn't short, but the amount of time I spend each day near a chainsaw is, so I assume I'm more likely to be killed in a traffic accident than by a chainsaw. However, if I commuted to a forest where I chopped down trees with a chainsaw for 8 hours straight...

[myrkul]

Please also provide statistics for chainsaw accidents per 100,000. And if possible, please provide each of the three statistics out of 100,000 operation hours, as well. My commute isn't short, but the amount of time I spend each day near a chainsaw is, so I assume I'm more likely to be killed in a traffic accident than by a chainsaw. However, if I commuted to a forest where I chopped down trees with a chainsaw for 8 hours straight...

Operation hours? How would one rate firearms in that? Is a holstered firearm being "operated"? Or only when drawn and aimed? Firearm accidents happen completely outside of the normal operation of the device, unless there is a mechanical failure.

[nimda]

I believe that the statistics would be screwed because people drive a lot, so there's bound to be more deaths. Go ahead with the first set of statistics though.

The main problem is this:

Firearm accidents happen completely outside of the normal operation of the device, unless there is a mechanical failure.

And automotive accidents almost always happen when the car is on. Don't you think there are more automotive accidents because people drive them so much? Not due to regulation or any of that crap.

Go ahead with the first set of statistics though.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

If chainsaws become a large factor in preventable American deaths, then I will support any bill which can reduce accidental chainsaw deaths. This includes certification for chopping wood, juggling, or any other chainsaw-related activity which kills a substantial number of people not operating chainsaws.

Fortunately for the residents of the USA, accidental non-operator chainsaw deaths aren't very common here.

Given that a relatively large number of people who don't own guns are injured or killed each year in gun accidents, I believe it worthwhile to attempt to reduce that number. If requiring free certification for legal gun ownership translates into every legal gun owner being educated on proper storage and handling of guns, then I support that, because I believe that the latter translates into fewer accidents and therefore fewer deaths.

Accidents involving guns, particularly involving persons who don't own any, are relatively rare.  You are much more likely to die in an auto accident, even with all of the drivers' permits & regulated safety devices, than die (or even be injured) by accident with a firearm even when you own them.

[nimda]

That's because there are more cars and more drivers for more hours in the day than guns and gun owners. Additionally, without certification and regulated safety devices, there would be even more car deaths.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

That's because there are more cars and more drivers for more hours in the day than guns and gun owners. Additionally, without certification and regulated safety devices, there would be even more car deaths.

I doubt that, show me the data.  In the meantime, I've got this....

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States

"In 2001, 70% of Americans drove to work in cars.[4] New York City is the only locality in the country where more than half of all households do not own a car (the figure is even higher in Manhattan, over 75%; nationally, the rate is 8%)."

So, based upon that last stat, we can assume that 92% of US housholds have cars.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

"Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property"

So just over half as many households in the US own firearms as own cars, yet the chart in the top link implies that the average gun owner is about 72 times more likely to die from an auto accident than from a firearm accident.  Sure, the gun owner likely uses his car much more than his firearm; but is the rate of use relevent?  It's normal to use a car everyday, while it's not normal to fire a weapon everyday.  No matter how you slice it, though, any American is way more likely to die from an auto accident than a gun accident even if we were to double the rate of gun accidents in order to be comparable to the car ownership rate.  Did you think that guns ownership was uncommon in the US?

[nimda]

Then I must concede that, in general, cars are more dangerous than guns. I have yet to concede that removal of mandatory licensing for automobiles would lower the accident rate. I also have yet to concede that gun accidents are insignificant, ignorable, or less frequent than chainsaw accidents.

Hopefully the conceding of a point is something new in this thread and it inspires you to enlighten me further.