Baths kill more Japanese then guns kill Americans

[hack89]

Japan's health ministry is to launch an investigation into bath-time fatalities after it was estimated that 14,000 people die every year in the tub - three times as many as those who died in car accidents.

Local authorities' data suggests most of the deaths were attributable to drowning, heart palpitations, heart attacks and subarachnoid haemorrhages, the Mainichi newspaper reported.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/9235564/Probe-into-Japanese-bathtub-fatalities-after-14000-die-in-one-year.html

About 8700 Americans were murdered by firearms last year.

[Callisto32]

1. Clearly, we need to ban something.

Circulatory systems, perhaps?

[thelordofhell]

2. Suicide in the tub

[TheWraith]

10. Unlikely, Japan has never really had much of a suicide taboo.

So there's little reason that they'd want to cover up suicides as something else, like accidental drowning.

However, Japanese baths are typically much deeper and much hotter than those used in, say, the US, so there's a correspondingly much higher risk for complications, especially with the elderly.

[slackmaster]

3. IMO a relatively useless, ironically humorous statistic that serves to give a broader perspective

I doubt that most normal Japanese people spend a lot of time worrying about dying in the tub, any more than most normal Americans worry about becoming a victim of random violence.

[CreekDog]

4. guns kill far fewer Japanese than they do Americans

[hack89]

8. Just like Americans, they downplay the real killers

and blow lesser threats out of proportion.

[CreekDog]

22. you're saying bathtub slippages are murders?

[hack89]

25. Are you always this obtuse?

we are talking about perceived dangers to society.

[CreekDog]

30. would you advocate safer bathtubs?

[hack89]

82. I would advocate society concentrating on the real threats to life. nt

[Starboard Tack]

149. You must be kidding - Bathtubs?

Do you honestly believe that bathtubs are more of a threat to life than guns? What planet do you live on?
You have truly brought the absurd to a new level.

[hack89]

156. So the actual death toll is irrelevant? At least you are honest. nt

[bowens43]

5. another ridiculous straw man......

if this is the best you have, you lose again.

[hack89]

7. Damn - I didn't realize how humor impaired this forum has become. nt

[DanTex]

23. Yeah, because the OP was just so hilarious!

[hack89]

26. Not all of us don a hair shirt every day. nt

[DanTex]

27. Was that supposed to be funny also?

[hack89]

29. Do you understand what a hair shirt is and why they were worn? nt

[DanTex]

43. Maybe an example would help you out.

This is funny:

[hack89]

83. You do wear one! nt

[Clames]

101. Well here's a pot calling the kettle black.

You've been losing since you started posting in this group.

[Enrique]

6. mods please move this thread

to the Japanese bath forum.

[Pholus]

9. So do you pick up the tub to kill someone else with it or use furniture polish... nt

[hack89]

11. Just like Americans, they downplay the real killers in their society

and blow lesser threats out of proportion.

[Pholus]

12. I control my time in a bathtub. I have to trust YOU with your gun. Prove you're trustworthy...

[hack89]

13. I have to trust you with your car - prove you're trustworthy...

because where I live automobile accidents kill many more people than guns.

[Pholus]

14. My car is registered. Passing cops can automatically run my tag with a scanner.

You know my car is coming because it is not under my jacket pocket.

I carry extra insurance to cover the societal costs my car may incur if I misuse it.

I had to attend state-mandated training to drive my car. My credentials must be kept current. They are a public record.

[hack89]

15. But none of those are required if you don't drive on public streets.

just like I don't need any of that to keep a gun in my house. And just like you, when I carry in public, I require a license and had to take training. And there is a public record.

Looks like things aren't as bad as you thought.

[Pholus]

16. Add gun liability insurance and I might relax.

[hack89]

18. Why? Does car insurance make the roads safer? nt

[Pholus]

20. Yes it does as it provides economic incentives to keep driving safer.

And it has a large societal cost billed to the people directly benefitting from automobiles.

Basic fairness.

[hack89]

24. So perhaps in the case of gun violence, we need to make criminals carry insurance?

seeing how they commit the vast majority of the violence?

[Pholus]

34. Naw, auto insurance simply absorbs the cost of nonpayers with higher rates.

The rest of us support their lack of ethics by then passing laws making it a crime to NOT have said insurance.

You act like these things have not been considered by analogy already...

[slackmaster]

51. Most people who own guns DO carry liability insurance, and anyone who rents or owns a home SHOULD

My homeowner's policy has a $1 million liability clause.

[Pholus]

63. If it covers accidents away from your home as well then you have all I ask.

[slackmaster]

69. Yes, as do most homeowner's and renter's policies

The major exclusions are for unlawful activity, and anything that would be covered by a motor vehicle operator's policy.

[Marengo]

58. Registration didn't stop Karst Tates

[Pholus]

76. And assassinating the Dutch royal family is relevant how again?

Given the OP is trying desperately to equate a home injury with homicide I guess it isn't much MORE of a reach.

But can any of you guys actually come up with something relevant for a change?

[Marengo]

86. In the exceedingly unlikely event you do not understand the point...

"hack89
13. I have to trust you with your car - prove you're trustworthy...
because where I live automobile accidents kill many more people than guns."

"Response to hack89 (Reply #13)
Tue May 1, 2012, 02:43 PM
Pholus
14. My car is registered. Passing cops can automatically run my tag with a scanner.
You know my car is coming because it is not under my jacket pocket.
I carry extra insurance to cover the societal costs my car may incur if I misuse it.
I had to attend state-mandated training to drive my car. My credentials must be kept current. They are a public record."

None of which prevented Karst Tates from using a car to murder six persons. Why would you expect us to trust you would be stopped by such methods?

[Pholus]

97. Because if I were so inclined a gun would be easier.

And that concludes another installment of simple answers to simple questions.

[Marengo]

103. You've answered nothing, which doesn't surprise

Let's try again shall we? In what manner can you prove that you are "trustworthy" enough to not, ever, use your car as a weapon?

[Pholus]

122. Obviously you fail when it comes to tool use.

The answer, just like guns is that you can trust me right up to the moment you can't then it is too late. Of course, that begs the question -- the moment I become untrustworthy WHAT TOOL WILL I SELECT FOR THE JOB? I apparently am smarter than you in that regard.

Now, let's try MY point again.

Do you use a toothbrush to open a walnut?

Do you pour your morning coffee in a washrag and suck out of that?

Your naive argument demands that we all ignore the simple fact that tools are designed for a purpose.

Mr. Would-be Assassin DID NOT succeed in his stated goal, did he? Care to answer why?

OH YEAH, HE USED A NON-PURPOSE DESIGNED TOOL. Of course, gun possession in the Netherlands is only three guns per hundred people and are relatively heavily regulated so I bet he didn't have one laying around. So he improvised.

And he failed. Any MORON could tell you why as long as they weren't blinded by the need to make the perfect analogy in support of their single issue. Improvised tools simply fail more often.

Let me derail your analogy once and for all here, and I will do it kindly for a change. Surprise is necessary in your little scenario. If my road-rage victim merely climbs to a second floor of a building my chances for successful vehicular mayhem just dropped to near zero. In fact, my victim could then ascend to a second story window and proceed to moon me until the police arrived to cart me off.

Unless I whip out the right tool for the job. The only tool which has survived the test of time as THE go-to way to impart momentum and kinetic energy in a directed manner to a desired target.

As usual, you try ANOTHER failed analogy because your reasoning skills are weak.

See cars and tubs are not like guns because they kill due to failures where guns kill due to successes in their design.

Take that and put it in your TV remote and smoke it.

[Marengo]

124. Design and intended purpose of the tool used is entirely irrelevant

which the example of Karst Tates proves quite effectively.

"Your naive argument demands that we all ignore the simple fact that tools are designed for a purpose."

Design purpose is, to repeat the term, irrelevant. I have provided an example of a tool being deliberately used for a purpose beyond it's designed intent to cause death and injury.

"Mr. Would-be Assassin DID NOT succeed in his stated goal, did he? Care to answer why?"

Again irrelevant, 6 persons lost their lives. Are you suggesting the families of the victims should take solace in the fact he did not achieve his stated goal?

Let me derail your analogy once and for all here,...

You've derailed nothing. You simply manufactured a scenario in which your attempt fails. I can imagine quite a few in which it succeeds. However, I don't need to. The casualties created by Tate's attack with his car proves the point well enough.

"the moment I become untrustworthy WHAT TOOL WILL I SELECT FOR THE JOB?"

God knows what tool you may select in that moment. Are you suggesting premeditation and pre-planning ALWAYS exist prior to a violent act?

"The answer, just like guns is that you can trust me right up to the moment you can't then it is too late."

In other words, you can't prove the "trustworthy" nature of yourself that you demand of others.

"As usual, you try ANOTHER failed analogy because your reasoning skills are weak."

Uh, no. The only failure present in this conversation is any substantive, reliable proof that you will not use your vehicle as a weapon to harm others without justifiable reason. Proof, apparently, that you require of others.

[Pholus]

125. Logic FTW. Why don't you ride your bathrug to work now... Bwahaha.

After all, design and intended purpose are "entirely irrelevant."

Actually, I just realized that I am talking with a tool.

[Marengo]

127. Dodge, eh? Back to the issue: Are you arguing that a car CANNOT be used as a weapon?

A purpose for which it was not designed for? That is the subject of this discussion.

[Pholus]

128. No. Chevy! So why don't you defend your house with your car?

And since you just made such a compelling argument that we do not need guns because we're surrounded by loads of lethal improvised arms, you have by default asserted that guns are fairly unnecessary in most day-to-day circumstances.

Why not just get rid of them then since they serve NO purpose that cannot be filled by a plethora of mundane items. Like Japanese bathtubs apparently. Or a banana (to bring in Monty Python which is where this discussion is headed).

After all, my car is a deadly lethal weapon. Basically fitting the definition of "arms" in the constitution according to you.

The right to keep and bare my Pinto! Yeah, that's the ticket!

Dude, really. Stop. You've reached the point where I am truly embarassed to be engaging you at all. For you that is...

[Marengo]

131. Please cite where I actually stated such a position

Otherwise, this assertion exists only in your mind and is recognizable as a tactic employed in desperation.

Unless, of course, you claim to be a mentalist.

Yes Pholus, your car is a potentially lethal weapon should you choose to use it as such. A purpose for which in was neither designed nor intended for. Now, how about some proof of YOUR trustworthiness to possess such a potentially lethal object.

[Pholus]

138. And I quote:

"Design and intended purpose of the tool used is entirely irrelevant?"

If it is ENTIRELY irrelevant then you must believe you can use a car to defend your house, irrespective of what the car was actually designed for.

Apparently, based on your other thread since "it can happen" is the grounds for the utility of a car's practicality as a weapon you believe that you should be able to EFFECTIVELY defend your house with nothing but a car.

Why do you need the gun again?

Your argument is in shambles. I feel like I am done here so have every last word you want.

Now just for you, a quote from the Monty Python fruit skit finally demonstrating the difference between your position and mine. You say that design is irrelevant. That makes you on the side of 'Arrison in this skit. Me, I claim that certain things are built as special application tools. That places my sympathies with the Sergeant.

Sgt.: Sorry, Mr. 'Arrison. Come at me with that banana. Hold it like that, that's it. Now attack me with it. Come on! Come on! Come at me! Come at me then! (Shoots him.)

Chapman: Aaagh! (dies.)

Sgt.: Now, I eat the banana. (Does so.)

[Marengo]

140. And you fail...

Last edited Thu May 3, 2012, 11:07 AM - Edit history (1)

Please cite where I have stated:

"that guns are fairly unnecessary in most day-to-day circumstances. Why not just get rid of them then since they serve NO purpose that cannot be filled by a plethora of mundane items."

I'm asking for a statement, not an assertion on YOUR part.

The only argument which is in shambles is your's that somehow REGISTRATION will prevent you from committing an act similar to Karst Tates' who was not prevented by REGISTRATION to commit an act of murder with a car

[Marengo]

141. Please also provide a cite to prove what you assume I "must believe"

"If it is ENTIRELY irrelevant then you must believe you can use a car to defend your house, irrespective of what the car was actually designed for."

I said such a thing where?

[Pholus]

157. I'm back. Deliberate obtuseness is NOT a debating skill.

And lack of understanding that words MEAN things is not an excuse.

You seem to be reduced to both.

Pathetic.

[Marengo]

158. Your bob and weave routine doesn't change the fact that your points in Post 14 were discredited...

And as you haven't made the claim of mentalism, your statement as to what I "must believe" is without any factual basis whatsoever. It is nothing more than a tactic designed to deflect the conversation away from your discredited position.

Attempting to dominate a debate by projecting absurd "beliefs" onto an opponent who has not specifically expressed such a thing is, to use your own word, pathetic.

Speaking of obtuse...

"Logic FTW. Why don't you ride your bathrug to work now... Bwahaha.
After all, design and intended purpose are "entirely irrelevant.""

As if you didn't understand I was referring to design and intent in regard to use as a weapon.

"When it comes to clarity, I'm not the guy confusing Japanese bathtubs with firearms."

Uh huh, nice dodge. Looks like you understood me well enough.

[Pholus]

159. This from one who cannot answer ONE simple question.

If you were contemplating killing someone would you honestly use a gun or a car? In fact, let's get your gutless appeal to premeditation as a factor out of the way. if your car is in the parking lot with the gun in the glovebox and you just found out your best friend was shtooking your wife, beat your children, stole your FAVORITE gun, embezzled your retirement, got you fired, framed you for child molestation and hired a hit man to assassinate you and was currently stalking you through the halls of your workplace with the immediate intent of killing you would you:

1) Get your car and drive it through up the stairs and through the aisles of the building to run him down like the dog he is

or

2) Get your gun

Now I am sure you would argue that number 1 is a perfectly reasonable choice, but I think I'd go with number 2 there.

Now about your worries that I cannot use your words to deduce your beliefs, that only happens if your beliefs don't match your words. Personally, I find that only happens for untrustworthy people (cf our earlier conversation about trust for the implications).

[Marengo]

160. LOL! Why do you persist in making ME the subject?

What I must believe, or what I weapon I might choose should the circumstances of your bizarre fantasy become reality.

It was never about ME, rather always about YOU and your claim that "registration", a police presence, the fact that your vehicle is "not under my jacket pocket.", and that insurance somehow renders you "trustworthy" not to use your car as a weapon.

To counter this argument, I presented an example in which at least one or more of these factors failed to prevent an individual, Karst Tates, from using a vehicle as a lethal weapon.

The point being, of course, that none of these factors would absolutely prevent you from ever doing so as they didn't prevent him.

It should have ended there, but instead you attempted to introduce the element of "likeliness", which is entirely irrelevant to the original point.

As to your ridiculous scenarios...no thanks, I'm not playing.

In the end, the evidence you presented of your "trustworthiness" was a flop, and I proved that.

Accept it and move on.

[Marengo]

161. By the way, didn't you say you were done with this conversation?

Post 138:

"I feel like I am done here so have every last word you want."

What compelled your return?

[Pholus]

162. I was until I saw the NUMBER of reply posts you made.

Three replies to my last post and then two to this one. That pattern indicates emotional rather than logical reasoning behind your responses and so I was just continuing because it was fun. In any case, thanks for the discussion.

[Marengo]

167. It has been fun, especially your comical attempts to detour the conversation away...

from the fact your point was discredited before you engaged me for the first time.

All of that on your part for nothing.

As for reasoning, I have yet to recognize any such thing in the entirety of you posting history in our exchange. Instead, only a desire to "save face".

[Pholus]

172. And all I have seen from you

is projection in the classic psychological sense.

And TWO more replies! You really get into this, don't you?

[Marengo]

174. If you are leveling an accusation, it would be advisable to ensure

you haven’t possibly demonstrated what you are accusing the other of doing.

You have attributed thoughts/beliefs to me I have not expressed. This might be interpreted as an example of psychological projection.

I do not claim this to actually be psychological projection on your part; I’m not expert in the field.

That being said, I can’t say it isn’t either.

And TWO more replies! You really get into this, don't you?

Uh, you continue to reply. Guess you "get into this" as well.

[Pholus]

176. As I thought, emotional...

And I find it relatively amusing.

[Marengo]

177. Please cite a specific example of where I have expressed....

the beliefs you have attributed to me. If you cannot, than my point as made in post 174 stands.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

163. Pardon me...

...for intruding. Let me highlight the problem with your question, with another question: Why would anyone be limited to a choice of only two weapons? An veritable arsenal exists just about everywhere. Surely you've seen those "Jail" shows where inmates damn near make a bazooka out of a broken toilet. Intelligent, adaptable individuals can develop the skills required to kill with any number of weapons or even none at all.

The real question in any such situation is: "What is the best tool (weapon) for the job?"

Now I have a question of my own: "Why do you believe that a law will stop a criminal?"


(Yes I exaggerated with that bazooka reference but those guys are impressive.) Sorry

[Pholus]

165. No problem. Sadly, you're doing the same thing.

Last edited Sun May 6, 2012, 09:22 AM - Edit history (1)

Now I restricted my choice to two devices because of an interminable thread above talking about how cars are lethal weapons based on a old failed attempt to use a car in an assassination. Hilariously, my opposite number seems oblivious to the fact that his cherry-picked incident made my primary argument for me. The target of the assassination lived, so irrespective of the death of bystanders the choice of the tool was not correct for the goal of the user.

Adding additional choices would merely confuse the issue even more without getting at the core. I like your addition though.

So what *is* the best tool for the job? My claim is that to kill someone improvised weapons are a poor second choice, reserved for cases like your prisoners where they are restricted to a limited number of options in which case "necessity is the mother of invention." Ask your prisoners if they'd rather have their bathroom bazooka or a gun.

As far as "why do you believe that a law will stop a criminal" the answer is: it doesn't and you are not understanding the purpose of laws by asking that question that way. Laws are a pledge to follow a set of rules in return for the benefits of a civil society. They are a contract. For most people, they form a deterrent but obviously they do not for a handful of sociopaths. In that case, laws become the mechanism to deprive the benefits of society from the violator.

[Marengo]

171. Uh, In post 14, did you state that registration would prevent you...

from attempting to assassinate a public figure?

"My car is registered. Passing cops can automatically run my tag with a scanner.
You know my car is coming because it is not under my jacket pocket.
I carry extra insurance to cover the societal costs my car may incur if I misuse it.
I had to attend state-mandated training to drive my car. My credentials must be kept current. They are a public record.

Looks like a no

The fact that he didn't succeed in his goal in harming the Dutch royal family is a red herring introduced by you. He DID successfully use his vehicle to commit homicide, which is the only relevant point in this discussion. Homicide, NOT prevented by registration, police presence, or the face that a car can't be concealed. Obviously, such things didn't make him more "trustworthy".

"Hilariously, my opposite number seems oblivious to the fact that his cherry-picked incident made my primary argument for me

It's you who is oblivious, to think that no one would easily recognize your "primary argument" in regard to tool choice as a red herring.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

173. Not knowing...

...which "thing" you're referring to, I'm unable to understand for sure why doing IT is a problem.

One point I wanted to make is that for any task, there is a best tool. If your task is a single murder, frequently the best tool my be a handgun. There are exceptions here. Unless they are silenced, handguns make a loud noise. While you can approach your target by stealth, you will be the center of attention when you pull the trigger. If you can arrange or select circumstances to your advantage, isolate your target in an area where the sound of the shot won't carry (an empty house or building removed from other people) or shoot from a distance where your location is concealed (like the Malvo/Muhammad shootings) then a firearm would be a good choice. If you intend to "off" yourself after your victim(s), (Cho) it probably doesn't matter. If you choose a sufficiently crowded and confusing location, (such as in front of Circus, circus) you may get lucky... or not if Tupac is really alive.

My message here is that regardless of circumstances, weapons ARE selected and there are generally ALWAYS weapons available. If there were a magic spell available to remove all firearms from the world, the rates of murder would be little different. Are improvised weapons a poor second choice? Of course they are. But weapons are always available. The same determination which developed the automatic pistol with interchangeable magazines and the atomic bomb makes knives and stabbing weapons from switch plates in prisons today. That ingenuity selected Zyklon B for more infamous purposes and manufactures IEDs today.

Your evaluation of the purpose of law is rather *spot-on* but missing a point. Murder is not wrong because it is illegal; murder is illegal because it is wrong. We have among us those whose determination crosses into brutal and ruthless areas. They are not always sociopaths. Sometimes they are just over the line about their excursions into predatory capitalism. They are aspiring 1%ers who can't follow the rules.

[Pholus]

175. A very good discussion!

Very much the level needed instead of what I've been seeing.

At no point have I ever said that guns needed to be removed. Far from it, they are a tool that has recreational as well as safety utility. On the other hand, they are introducing costs to society that need to be subsidized somehow because the status quo is too expensive. That is where I am operating and that is what gets me classified as "anti-gun."

[Marengo]

145. Yes, you are done, as your claim of "trustworthiness" through registration...

was demolished by a single example. I have many more, shall I continue?

[Marengo]

129. Oh, a bit of friendly advice: Pretending not to understand a clear point...

by pretending it isn't clear doesn't enhance your image. May want to take that into consideration the next time you attempt this tactic.

[Pholus]

130. When it comes to clarity, I'm not the guy confusing Japanese bathtubs with firearms. nt

[Marengo]

132. Uh Huh...

Just as I expected

I wasn't referring to the OP. Care to address what I WAS referring to? Or do you pretend not to understand that either.

[Pholus]

134. Sure. I'm not the guy who thinks I can rub someone out with a volvo at will. nt

[Marengo]

135. Uh, are you claiming it can't happen?

[Pholus]

136. No, but unlike you I understand which is more likely. nt

[Marengo]

144. Likeliness is a non-issue...

Introduced by you only as a means of deflection.

[shadowrider]

164. Would you anti-gun people please make up your minds?

On an earlier thread an anti-gun person insisted a car WAS/IS a lethal weapon.

Sheesh, I can't keep up..

[Pholus]

166. Dude, you must be THIS TALL before posting...

Not that you bothered to read the entire discussion before butting in with a childish misread of the entire thread, but my point is that WHILE a car may be a "lethal weapon" guns are obviously better at their designed purpose than any. Care to dispute that? Are you one of those guys who think that bathtubs are just as lethal as guns? Would you defend your home against attack with a car or a bathtub?

Just how far does the party line go with you, my friend?



So, now that you've been brought up to speed, can you contribute usefully to the discussion or are you only capable of repeating others' sloganeering?

[CreekDog]

31. sure, i'll register my car, get licensed, agree to follow the laws and carry insurance

which of those are you willing to do for your firearms and their use?

yeah, i thought so.

[gejohnston]

33. car registration

is to make money to maintain roads and traffic system, not so much public safety. An car does a lot more damage than a firearm and does more often.

[CreekDog]

35. so your answer is "no"

we can do all these things for cars and driving --but for a gun? nah.

thank you for answering.

[gejohnston]

37. some places do

the licensing and registration. Is the process you propose as easy and efficient as most DMVs? Or are you talking about a Kafkaesque maze that serves no legitimate purpose like DC and Chicago? Or will licenses be limited to rich people like NYC? Will politicians be able to ignore the law like ummm Chicago?
It all depends on the details.

Can we regulate cars the same way we regulate guns? For example ban interstate private car sales? If you see a car you like on ebay but happens to be in another state, it must be shipped to a local car dealer.

I don't know of any place that has the insurance requirement for guns.

[DonP]

38. You really don't want to go there - But we'd love treating guns like cars.

Let's start here:

If we license gunowners just like we license drivers...

You could get a gun license at age 16

At age 18 you could buy any gun that you can afford and take it to any state in the country including places like New York City and Chicago

You wouldn’t need a waiting period, just pay the money and take the gun

You had to pass a test that a retarded gorilla could pass

You would undergo no background check

If you are a felon or a psychopath, you could still get a gun license

Your gun license would have 50-state reciprocity

Your gun license would allow you to carry your gun in virtually any public place, such as schools, universities, or courthouses

You would only need a license to carry your guns off your property

You could buy all the guns you can afford, with no background check or waiting period

You would only register your guns if you intend on carrying in public

I'm sure others will add to the list of benefits to gun owners by doing it your way

But you really meant let's pile on some more pointless and useless laws to make it harder and to discourage more gun ownership, didn't you?

[CreekDog]

39. nice strawman

when you are ready to seriously discuss the topic, i'll be around.

[shadowrider]

42. No strawman. The conversation is to treat guns like cars, right?

[CreekDog]

46. not a carbon copy

but if that's how you're going to argue, then talk to yourself.

[shadowrider]

47. So in your opinion, treat cars and guns the same, only different

Dependent upon what transfers over from cars to guns that you don't like.

Is that about it?

[DonP]

48. Hey, it was your BIG idea

Typical gun control fan.

All talk, no action and gets real testy when somebody simply responds to their harebrained ideas.

You are so predictable. Did you really think that the whole cars=guns thing was an original idea?

[Pholus]

49. Just like "tubs and guns" I guess. Some analogies are OBVIOUSLY more equal than others.

[DonP]

53. I don't expect much from the control side of the discussion and I'm seldom disappointed

Nothing in the way of original ideas, accurate analogies or true compromise suggestions, and certainly nothing in the way of real world action or any sort of grass roots activity. It's basically a top down concept financed by a small board of 1%ers that are actually backing slowly away now from the issue financially.

In short nothing that will change the current trend toward more liberal gun laws, especially with the trend in violent crime continuing down.

Gun control support pretty much boils down to a steady stream of indignant and/or snarky typing on a keyboard about how horrible guns and gun owners are and how some day things are going to change and we'll all be better off with more gun control. Oh, and of course how the evil NRA/GOP/ALEC/Koch/Dr. Pepper conspiracy is somehow responsible for every bi-partisan law passed and every criminal act with a gun, even though the NRA has no real political power or leverage ... or so we've been assured repeatedly.

But none of them ever start petitions to change laws, meet with their legislators about the issues and to date, we only have one poster here who actually claims to belong to the Brady organization.

So it gets harder every week to take the gun control side of the discussion seriously.

[Simo 1939_1940]

59. Well said. I think that a good percentage of restriction supporters know their cause is lost.

You can hear the desperation and bitterness in their statements. We have an "educated" member here who can't communicate without pejoratives. Don't know how many in this forum watch Stephen Colbert, but he's a good example. Lately he's been ramping up the anti-gun BS......not outright lying, but misleading ala Michael Moore.

So it gets harder every week to take the gun control side of the discussion seriously.

I credit the internet to a large degree - much to the dismay of Rachel Maddow - for helping to sink the gun restriction cause. Folks get the ability to compare and contrast the difference in what pro-rights folks and pro-restrictionists actually know on issues such as firearm function/design, gun laws etc. They contrast the appeals to emotion with the appeals to intellect, and the restriction cause comes up short.

[Pholus]

64. Hey, I don't expect much from the freeloaders either

Oh yeah, they're all so self righteous about how "It's my Constitutional right" and all that until it comes for supporting the social cost of their rights and then all of a sudden that's ALL ABOUT GUN CONTROL.

No, it is about MY MONEY that I earned and that I deserve to keep. I pay taxes and higher health costs because of your hobby.

Frankly, as long as I have to pay I have a say. Don't like it? Step up and take some responsibility.

Till then just go on cutting and pasting your arguments. Eventually you might learn to include this thing called a "hyperlink" in your posts to show where you were plagarizing from.

Get back to me when you can.

[Pholus]

50. I notice you didn't mention buy liability insurance though.

Nice cut-and-paste job by the way. You so original!!!

Let me credit your lack of originality properly.

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-271956.html

[DonP]

54. Ha! Yes, because licensing guns like cars is such an original suggestion

I didn't claim it was original.

Hell, gun control hasn't had an original idea since Reagan was in office.

Let us know when any of you have a glimmering of an idea on gun control that you actually think might pass in the legislature and survive the court challenges.

But you can't help it, you really don't have much to cling to.

I'll give you liability insurance as soon as you can offer us 50 state reciprocity and no purchase or age limits. Here's a hint, your first step is to get Bloomberg to shut the fuck up and go away.

[Pholus]

62. At least I use my own words.

Of course, in your strawman land because I dared say anything less than 100% stellar about guns that gives this whole laundry list of properties I must also possess. Should have figured. Since you can't use original wording of your ideas it probably was too much to include nuance in a position.

And only one of us is "clinging" to anything here.

[DonP]

67. Ill informed, bitter and a bad haircut is no way to go through life

Be sure and let us know when you actually do something to support gun control, besides whining online.

How's that for original?

[Pholus]

75. No wonder you parrot what other people say...

My haircut? Really? The best you can do is some 50 year old oblique reference to hippies?

Look dude, I take back what I said. Please stick to the cut-and-paste.

And as far as whining online, I'd point out that you're here too, aren't you.

[hack89]

154. Just like a car, none of that applies to my gun in my house and not carried in public

To carry in public I need a license and agree to follow the laws. My guns are insured. I have an umbrella insurance policy in case I get sued (they are dirt cheap)

[jeepnstein]

137. I prove it every day.

[oneshooter]

155. I don't have to prove that I am trustworthy. You have to prove that I am not.

[DanTex]

17. Every two years guns kill as many Americans as died in Vietnam.

I wasn't around during Vietnam, but maybe someone here remembers. The Vietnam War, was that, like, a big deal? Was it like "why are so many of our young people dying senselessly?" or more like "everyone chill, it's less people than die in Japanese bathtubs!"

[hack89]

19. How many MONTHS does it take for alcohol or tobacco to kill that many?

like I said - downplay the real dangers and blow lesser threat out of proportion.

[DanTex]

21. Yeah, Vietnam was blown way out of proportion...

Nobody is downplaying the dangers of alcohol or tobacco. The only danger being downplayed here is guns.

[hack89]

28. Yet I see no proposed laws to ban the use of alcohol and tobacco

even though they kill at a rates several orders of magnitude greater than guns. Why do we tolerate such deadly stuff in the hands of the public?

Are you referring to that dangers that gets smaller and smaller every year? That danger?

[CreekDog]

32. there are lots of laws about alcohol and tobacco

would you like them to be as free as firearms?

[gejohnston]

45. don't know much about gun laws do you?

I can legally go to any state and legally buy a beer or a pack of cancer sticks
I can legally only buy a gun in one state. I can only legally sell a gun to residents of that same state.
I don't have to go through a background check to buy beer
the ATF does not require serial numbers for beer cans
I don't think you need a federal license to sell tobacco and alcohol
Records of A&T sales are not required under federal law
The ATF does not show up to gas stations to inspect sales records and inventory
Gas stations don't have to report more than two packs or bottles to the ATF (like handguns)
selling to beer or smokes to a minor is not a federal felony

That is just scratching the surface of federal law. Now shall we discuss local and state laws?

[hack89]

56. There are more.for guns

Gun are more tightly regulated. Can you lose your right to buy cigs or beer?

[DanTex]

36. Not a ban, just a rational balance between individual rights and public safety.

That obviously means much tighter gun regulations, but a ban isn't necessary.

Of course, the tobacco gun lobby is going to fight tooth-and-nail, question all of the scientific studies and statistics, insist that lung cancer gun violence is an ivory tower conspiracy, and argue that any restrictions on smoking guns are "anti-freedom".

I'd say guns might be compared to drunk driving. Drunk driving kills about 10,000 people every year. Guns kill about 30,000. A lot of the gun deaths are suicides. Then again a lot of the drunk driving deaths, it is the drunk driver who dies.

Statistically, of course, both guns and driving drunk are very dangerous. But what about the responsible drunk drivers, who don't need the government to tell them how much is too much? Why should I be forced to take a taxi home because other people can't hold their liquor?

[shadowrider]

40. A rational balance between individual rights and public safety to be decided by anti-gun people?

You said:
"That obviously means much tighter gun regulations".

I'll agree to the balance if you let pro-gun people decide what that is.

[DanTex]

44. Yes, and let's let drunk people write the drunk driving laws.

[sarisataka]

52. They do

Students try to strip DWI immunity from Minn. lawmakers
http://www.kare11.com/news/article/967340/396/Students-try-to-strip-DWI-immunity-from-Minn-lawmakers

[Straw Man]

73. Sigh.

I'd say guns might be compared to drunk driving.

I wouldn't. I would say that irresponsible and criminal behavior with guns might be compared to drunk driving. The guns themselves? Just the driving part.

Statistically, of course, both guns and driving drunk are very dangerous. But what about the responsible drunk drivers, who don't need the government to tell them how much is too much? Why should I be forced to take a taxi home because other people can't hold their liquor?

See above. And don't give up your day job.

[DanTex]

74. Snark is no substitute for logic.

Driving drunk alone doesn't hurt anyone. It's only if you actually have an accident that you cause damage. This is the same argument that pro-gunners make. Why should I be exposed to gun nut vigilantes walking around with loaded weapons, ready to snap at the sight of a hoodie-wearing teenager?

Because "most" gun nuts don't end up shooting anyone? Neither do most drunk drivers.

Also, not surprisingly, gun owners are more likely to both abuse alcohol and to drive drunk than average citizens.

[Straw Man]

78. Snark and logic can co-exist.

Driving drunk alone doesn't hurt anyone.

Wrong. It has huge potential to harm the driver, and it often does. Drunks drive off the road with appalling frequency and often die in the process.

Why should I be exposed to gun nut vigilantes walking around with loaded weapons, ready to snap at the sight of a hoodie-wearing teenager?

Why should I be exposed to drivers who may be drunk? Let's put an end to driving. That's the logic of your formulation.

Because "most" gun nuts don't end up shooting anyone? Neither do most drunk drivers.

Yes, the likelihood of being shot by a drunk driver is low.

If I go by what I think you mean, you are still persisting in your flawed analogy that equates mere gun ownership with the dangerously reckless practice of driving while intoxicated. The logical formulation would be "Since most drivers do not drive drunk, we don't need to ban driving." Drunken drivers constitute a subset of drivers, just as convicted felons and the mentally ill constitute a subset of gun owners. I have no problem with restrictions on both subsets.

[DanTex]

80. If only you were capable of logic.

Key word is potential. Drunk driving has huge potential for causing harm. Guns have huge potential for causing harm also. In fact, as I've pointed out, guns kill many more people than drunk driving in the US.

But most individuals who drive drunk don't hurt themselves or anyone else. That doesn't mean it's a good idea, or that it shouldn't be prohibited. It's just a fact.

[Straw Man]

81. Who's snarky now? But your logic fails.

Key word is potential. Drunk driving has huge potential for causing harm. Guns have huge potential for causing harm also. In fact, as I've pointed out, guns kill many more people than drunk driving in the US.

Again, you fail to differentiate illegal/irresponsible gun ownership in the same manner that you differentiate drunk driving. The more apt comparison would be between gun ownership and driving of all kinds. Your analogy is as crude as it is flawed.

But most individuals who drive drunk don't hurt themselves or anyone else.

Exactly how do you know this? Do you have access to God's database of drunken drivers? Maybe Santa told you who's been naughty or nice? Are we talking about a single incident of drunken driving, or a lifetime pattern? Your data is woefully insufficient. I could just as easily claim that most people who habitually drive drunk will at some point in their lives be involved in a personal injury and/or property damage accident. You couldn't disprove it. Our competing claims, both essentially baseless, cancel each other out.

[DanTex]

85. Not God. Just google and some common sense.

http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

There are an estimated 100M instances of drunk driving each year, and around 10K deaths. So that's one death every 10K. That means that, roughly, you'd have to drive drunk every single day for 30 years before killing someone on average. Like I said, most people who drive drunk don't end up hurting anyone.

You like to absolve "responsible" gun owners of all responsibility and blame gun deaths on the "irresponsible" ones, but it's also true that not all drunk drivers are equally dangerous. You fail to distinguish between "responsible" drunks who can hold their liquor and aren't a threat behind the wheel, versus the "irresponsible" drunks who get into accidents.

The thing is, you can't tell in advance which drunk drivers are going to kill people. You also don't know which toters are going to shoot people. But you do know that if there are more drunk drivers out there, there are going to be more accidents. And you also know if there are more guns available, there are going to be more gun deaths.

[Straw Man]

87. Did I hear you correctly?

You fail to distinguish between "responsible" drunks who can hold their liquor and aren't a threat behind the wheel, versus the "irresponsible" drunks who get into accidents.

Pardon me if I don't recognize the category of the "responsible drunk driver." Please tell me you're joking.

If that's the length to which you must go to support your ludicrous analogy, it's time to give it up. You're starting to look very foolish.

[DanTex]

88. Note to self: not all people are capable of abstract thought.

I'm sure you're good at shooting guns, though.

[Straw Man]

90. Oh, was there an abstraction in there?

It certainly looked to me as though you were trying to use statistics to support your contention that there is such a thing as a "responsible drunk driver." Nothing abstract about that.

You do get rather nasty when your failures are pointed out, don't you.

[DanTex]

91. Hint: the word "responsible" was in quotations.

You really don't get it? Please tell me you're just playing dumb!

[Straw Man]

94. Which changes nothing.

That analogy you made was between a drunk driver who hasn't yet been in an accident and any gun owner. This analogy is ridiculous on its face. In trying to malign gun owners, you end up defending drunk drivers. Don't you get it? The irony is delicious.

PS: I don't think you really understand what an abstraction is.

[DanTex]

95. LOL. Try again!

[Straw Man]

98. You'll have to do better than that.

You seem to think that your sarcasm is some kind of magic pass that allows to you to escape the failure of your flawed analogy. Your formulation has been noted, understood, and rejected. You say ...

Drunk driver = gun owner.

I say ...

Drunk driver = irresponsible gun owner. Because not all gun owners are irresponsible.

You say ...

Not all drunk drivers are irresponsible either.

I say...

Surely you're joking.

At this point, you start babbling about abstraction.

Please show me my error.

[DanTex]

100. I guess you weren't just playing dumb...

But hey, just keep repeating that my analogy "failed". You might even convince yourself!

[Straw Man]

105. Was that supposed to be substantive?

Because it sounds like a dodge to me. Would you care to address my analysis of our exchange? Or do you just want to hide behind your snide smokescreen?

[DanTex]

107. Your analysis was "you must be joking". Did I get that right?

You want me to pretend that "you must be joking" is an intelligent comment?

LOL. Sorry, man. It's not. It's really, really dumb.

[Straw Man]

111. Yes, Dan, you did.

You want me to pretend that "you must be joking" is an intelligent comment?

LOL. Sorry, man. It's not. It's really, really dumb.

OK, Dan, let me translate that for you: it means "You have made a bizarre and ridiculous assertion." That is what I wished to convey to you with my rhetorical question. You do understand rhetorical questions, don't you Dan?

But rather than responding to that characterization, you started pretending that I didn't understand you and insulting me. Is that what passes for rhetorical skill in the rarefied intellectual circles in which you move, Dan? Sad, very sad.

I notice that you've abandoned any defense of your analogy beyond a reflexive "Is too!" C'mon, man: Are you ready to go the wall with your assertion that simply owning a gun is as irresponsible as driving drunk? Here's your chance: defend, clarify, whatever you want to do. Let's hear it.

[DanTex]

113. In my "rarefied intellectual circles", people actually back their accusations with reason.

If they were to call something "bizarre and ridiculous", they would explain why.

In this case, there's nothing bizarre and ridiculous about the fact that some people who drive drunk don't pose as much of a risk as others. Not all people become terrible drivers as soon as their BAC crosses 0.08. This doesn't make drunk driving responsible in the conventional sense, but such drivers play a role analogous to the "responsible" gun owners -- those gun owners who also don't pose as much risk as others and thus don't contribute very much to gun violence.

Now, this isn't a terribly complicated idea. It is a little abstract, and it does make use of a certain linguistic construction using quotations marks, a construction that I tend to assume most people are familiar with (and the ones who don't could just ask "why the quotation marks" rather than just ignore them like you did).

Anyway, what happened next is that, instead of responding to my actual point (which I think you did understand), instead you decided to play dumb, ignore the quotations, and pretend that I was suggesting that drunk driving was responsible. And you did this because it's a lot easier to misrepresent what I said than it is to come up with an intelligent response.

So after that, I figured I'd have a little fun. But if you want to have an intelligent and honest discussion, all you need to do is start being intelligent and honest.

[Straw Man]

117. OK, now we're back on track.

Not all people become terrible drivers as soon as their BAC crosses 0.08. This doesn't make drunk driving responsible in the conventional sense, but such drivers play a role analogous to the "responsible" gun owners -- those gun owners who also don't pose as much risk as others and thus don't contribute very much to gun violence.

No, no, and no again. It seems very clear to me -- and I mistakenly thought it should be very clear to you -- that there is a qualitative difference between someone who owns a gun and behaves in a safe, responsible, sober, and law-abiding manner with it and someone who engages in such a risky behavior as drunk driving. There is a divide there that is more than just a matter of relative BAC. It is a difference in intention: one scrupulously obeys the law and the other deliberately flouts it. Your use of quotation marks notwithstanding, you attempted to establish a rough equivalence between the two, and if one behavior is as "irresponsible" as the other, then it as "responsible" as the other in the bargain. To me, this indicates a reflexive contempt on your part for people who own guns. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway, what happened next is that, instead of responding to my actual point (which I think you did understand), instead you decided to play dumb, ignore the quotations, and pretend that I was suggesting that drunk driving was responsible. And you did this because it's a lot easier to misrepresent what I said than it is to come up with an intelligent response.

I would submit to you that you didn't understand the full implications of what you were saying. As the old saying goes, "Fish can't see the water they swim in." It sounded reasonable to you. In my opinion, it was not. It was crude, hyperbolic, and offensive.

So after that, I figured I'd have a little fun. But if you want to have an intelligent and honest discussion, all you need to do is start being intelligent and honest.

If your idea of "a little fun" is calling people "dumb," I think you need to calibrate your pleasure meter. I have never been less than honest in my responses, and I have brought to bear whatever intelligence I possess. Frankly, I don't think you're one to lecture me either on intelligence or on honesty.

Carry on.

[DanTex]

119. You're wrong. Mostly.

I'm not interested in legality or "intention". I'm interested in the harm to society. As a whole, guns take a huge toll on society, significantly more than drunk driving. The reason I brought up the analogy was because everyone agrees that drunk driving takes a huge toll on society, but some people are in denial about the damage from guns, which is three times greater in terms of lives lost.

I'm not trying to show that "responsible" gun owners and "responsible" drunk drivers are identical in all ways. I'm really just pointing out that, in both cases, not all people who engage in the risky activity are equally responsible for the harm. There are "responsible" gun owners and "responsible" drunk drivers. But from the point of view of public safety, the existence of "responsible" gun owners/drunk drivers doesn't mitigate the need for regulations in order to mitigate the enormous amount of harm to society collectively by people who partake in gun ownership/drunk driving.

And then there's the problem with the definition of "responsible gun owner". Pro-gunners tend to define this retrospectively: the people who shoot others or themselves are "irresponsible", so by definition "responsible" gun owners don't do any harm. Of course, the problem with this is that you can't tell apart the responsible from the irresponsible ahead of time.

If your idea of "a little fun" is calling people "dumb," I think you need to calibrate your pleasure meter.

LOL. Coming from you. Please.

[Straw Man]

142. You still can't see it, can you.

I'm not trying to show that "responsible" gun owners and "responsible" drunk drivers are identical in all ways. I'm really just pointing out that, in both cases, not all people who engage in the risky activity are equally responsible for the harm.

So you admit that your analogy is strained at best. See bold type for a meaningless tautology. Yes, your proposed equivalence is rough -- very rough. And again you persist in asserting it as if it had some significance.

But from the point of view of public safety, the existence of "responsible" gun owners/drunk drivers doesn't mitigate the need for regulations in order to mitigate the enormous amount of harm to society collectively by people who partake in gun ownership/drunk driving.

False premise, Dan. Owning a gun is no more inherently dangerous than owning alcohol and a motor vehicle. The danger lies in what is done with those possessions. A "responsible" drunk driver decides to engage in a dangerous activity and takes the chance that nothing bad will happen. A "responsible" gun owner behaves .... responsibly. The fact that you keep ignoring this distinction speaks to the weakness of your analogy. Some drunk drivers get in accidents and some do not; some gun owners commit crimes of violence and some do not. And this is the basis on which you want to ... What is it you want to do, anyway? Make gun ownership a crime equivalent to drunk driving? Ban alcohol? Ban cars? That would make as much sense from a public health perspective as banning guns.

And then there's the problem with the definition of "responsible gun owner". Pro-gunners tend to define this retrospectively: the people who shoot others or themselves are "irresponsible", so by definition "responsible" gun owners don't do any harm. Of course, the problem with this is that you can't tell apart the responsible from the irresponsible ahead of time.

That's your definition. I define it dynamically as people who follow the laws, who adhere to safe practices, who get training and education, and who behave in a safe and sober manner at all times. The fact that you see such people as a risk to society roughly equivalent to someone who chooses to drive while under the influence of alcohol suggests to me that you harbor an unreasonable prejudice.

You can certainly tell the responsible from the irresponsible drivers ahead of time: the irresponsible ones are the ones who choose to drink and drive. They have pre-identified as a high-risk group, and as such are rightfully subject to sanctions. Simply owning a gun does not represent a comparable threat to public safety, any more than owning a can of gasoline and book of matches makes one an arsonist.

LOL. Coming from you. Please.

Yes, Dan. Coming from me. You can "LOL" all you want. I have been insulted and condescended to by better people than you. Just don't try to pretend that your discourse is civil or that you are in good faith. You have no standing there.

[DanTex]

143. Sorry, you're the one who isn't following.

An analog doesn't have to share every attribute with the original to be useful. It only has to share certain key ones.

The reason you aren't getting this is because you are stuck in a very rigid mindset when it comes to gun violence, no doubt because of your pro-gun ideology. You simply can't get past "responsible gun owners don't hurt anyone".

I see guns more as a public safety issue, a lot like drunk driving. You can disagree all you want, but the fact of the matter is that not all people need the government to tell them how much alcohol is too much to be driving. But that doesn't matter. What matters is that drunk driving is a severe public safety hazard, and laws designed to contain the damage are justified.

And these essential attributes are shared between drunk driving and gun violence. The fact that many gun owners can be trusted not to do anything stupid doesn't change the fact that death and violence are the predictable consequences of lax gun laws, and that tighter gun regulations are justified on these grounds.

I have been insulted and condescended to by better people than you.

Nice one! Whining about snark and being snarky in the same sentence! You must be one of the "smart ones"!

[Straw Man]

146. And around and around.

And these essential attributes are shared between drunk driving and gun violence.

You've finally said something that has a kernel of truth in it; not "gun ownership," but "gun violence." That's the apt analogy that I've been insisting on all along and that you've been denying. Congratulations on finally making some sense.

The reason you aren't getting this is because you are stuck in a very rigid mindset when it comes to gun violence, no doubt because of your pro-gun ideology. You simply can't get past "responsible gun owners don't hurt anyone".

And you can't get past "not all drunk drivers hurt someone." The more appropriate assertion would be "not all drivers hurt someone." Drunk drivers are a pre-selected high-risk group that has already demonstrated a disregard for public safety.

Perhaps my mindset is rigid, but yours is equally rigid. You simply cannot grasp the concept of responsible gun ownership, nor do you understand the concept of protected rights. Your elevation of a specious "public good" over all else borders on fascism.

I have been insulted and condescended to by better people than you.

Nice one! Whining about snark and being snarky in the same sentence! You must be one of the "smart ones"!

I'm not "whining about snark." I'm telling you that your snark is lame and ineffectual. There's a difference. If you were more astute, perhaps you could see it.

[DanTex]

148. OK, this is getting boring and repetitive.

Your elevation of a specious "public good" over all else borders on fascism.

Fascism! Of course!

I'm not "whining about snark." I'm telling you that your snark is lame and ineffectual. There's a difference. If you were more astute, perhaps you could see it.

Bo-ring. You need to fire whoever wrote "If you were more astute, perhaps you could see it" and bring back the witty guy who wrote your last set of insults.

You had some moments though. Not bad for a pro-gunner.

[Straw Man]

151. So you're done?

You disappoint me, Dan. I at least tried to mix some substance in with my snark. You're not even trying any more.

You had some moments though. Not bad for a pro-gunner.

Is that your parting shot? Knee-jerk condescension? Weak, Dan. Very weak.

[gejohnston]

89. I would like to see the actuall study and methods

used and raw data personally, but maybe I'm just a regressive denier.
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/25741

[DanTex]

92. You're just a regressive denier.

The methods were completely straightforward. It was a survey.

[gejohnston]

93. a phone survey in a few states

it is a crime in some of those states to carry a gun in the car (loaded accessible), drunk driving is also a crime.
The survey was done in the 1990s.

[DanTex]

96. Your favorite survey of all time was also done in the 1990s.

Funny how that never seems to bother you.

Even gun owners who didn't carry in their cars were twice as likely to drink and drive as non-gun owners. And gun owners who keep their guns unlocked and loaded are also more likely to drink heavily than gun owners who do not.

It makes sense. People who like the thrill of having a loaded gun easily accessible are more likely to take other irresponsible risks.

edit: typo

[gejohnston]

99. but it was done by a real scientist

in an objective manner.

Even gun owners who didn't carry in their cars were twice as likely to drink and drive as non-gun owners. And gun owners who keep their guns unlocked and loaded are also more likely to drink heavily than gun owners who do not.

do you have any actual evidence of this?

It makes sense. People who like the thrill of having a loaded gun easily accessible are more likely to take other irresponsible risks.

It sounds like you have been taking lesson from the Bill Frist School of Remote Diagnosis.

[DanTex]

102. LOL! A "real scientist in an objective manner"

And this is why I read DU Guns! Between you and Straw Man, I've had as many laughs this thread as the Daily Show and Colbert combined!

[gejohnston]

104. In other words,

you have nothing of substance.

[Straw Man]

106. Yeah, Dan has pretty much run out of ...

... cogent things to say.

Now he's just flinging poo.

[DanTex]

108. Well, I do have a peer-reviewed study, which, as usual, you are desperately trying to deny.

I guess our standards for "substance" are different.

[gejohnston]

109. so was mine.

I would like to read the critiques of Wintemute's study.

[DanTex]

110. Hey, you were the one who said I had nothing of substance. That wasn't nice! Or true!

I'm sure the gun blogs are full of critiques of Wintemute's study. And even if they're not, I'm sure you'll find an excuse to deny it anyway.

[gejohnston]

112. I don't know if they do or not

I only read the ones that talk about guns (product reviews, history of weapons etc.)
I was thinking more in terms of a criminologist or sociologist.

A cheap shot at a researcher and professor who made an honest effort to do research and got results he didn't expect and you don't like is not nice either.

[DanTex]

114. Hey! You took the first cheap shot at a researcher and professor!

When you said "but it was done by a real scientist in an objective manner", that implied that Wintemute is not a real and objective scientist.

[gejohnston]

115. he is an ER doctor

who teaches emergency medicine. Are MDs and engineers scientists? Most would say not. I sure he does a great job in his specialty, but I'm skeptical of his skills and motives in his hobby field.
Is it safe to assume that neither one of us would want Kleck to read our MRIs.

[DanTex]

116. See, there's another cheap shot!

The whole "MDs aren't qualified" argument is just one big cheap shot. People do interdisciplenary work all the time, and MDs can be plenty qualified to do this kind of research. You basically never hear anyone who has any idea how scientific research actually works making this argument. It's just loons on gun blogs.

[gejohnston]

118. what gun blogs do you read?

Never saw anything like that at the ones I do. That's not a cheap shot. A cheap shot would be knocking his ability as an MD (which I know nothing negative about.)
After reading his "gun show under cover" project? (How do you go under cover to a public event?) and wondering about his ability to do sociology, is reasonable. Just like it was not a cheap shot at Kleck's (or Phil Cook for that matter) ablility to read MRIs.

[DanTex]

120. Of course it's a cheap shot.

Where does this idea that people are only qualified to do research in the field they got their degree in come from? Certainly not from anyone who has experience with scientific publications.

[gejohnston]

121. which are very few people

Where do they get the idea? How would I know? Take a poll. I'm not telepathic.

[hack89]

84. So what measure do you use to determine who is worthy of owning a gun or not?

isn't that the bottom line for you?

[Common Sense Party]

41. I cling to my tub. I am a tub nut. I strap one or two tubs on before I leave the house.

You'll take away my tub when you pry it out of my cold, dead, dishpan hands!

[EX500rider]

55. Also known as "The Adhesive Duck Deficiency"...

.....(Big Bang Theory reference)

[Callisto32]

61. Explaining it made it way less funny.

[iverglas]

57. so?

I actually can't think of anything else to say.

Heart disease killed 616,000 people in the US in 2008 -- nearly 25% of all deaths in that country.

Discuss among yourself ...

[Remmah2]

70. Maybe someone's suggesting you need a bath. nt

nt

[Taitertots]

60. That includes people who died of natural causes while in the tub

It wasn't the bath that killed many of those people.

Isn't that like complaining that Hospice care is killing people.

[ileus]

65. Time to ban indoor plumbing...

[bongbong]

66. I see the usual suspects

Seems there's a bunch of screen names on DU who comment almost exclusively on gun posts. Some people (not me!) say that it is almost as if they were paid by the NRA or something. What a strange idea!

[DonP]

68. Aha!

Seems there's are a screen name or two that are so insecure they track all the posts of people they don't agree with for some odd reason. It's almost as if they are stalking fellow DU members because they get their ass whipped in every discussion in this forum. But stalking other DU members is against the rules and can get your TS'd, so I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

(I'd imply they might be paid by the Brady bunch, but we all know they don't have any money, since gun control is dead ass broke these days and gun control supporters don't really donate to any groups)

Hmmm.

[bongbong]

79. LOL

> because they get their ass whipped in every discussion in this forum.

Hey, Digger has dibs on self-declarations of victory. Those are what make up almost all of his posts. You'd better lay off, or maybe you post as him too. Who knows with the gun-religionists?

[Hoyt]

71. Yet you still tuck one away before venturing out.

[hack89]

168. Very rarely. I live in a very safe area. nt

[Hoyt]

169. Well, you are one of the first to realize you don't have to pack everywhere.

[hack89]

170. Many here have said that. You have just ignored them. nt

[Meiko]

72. Having spent

time in Japan I can tell you there are more things in a Japanese bath that can kill you then hot water or slipping.

[LiberalEsto]

77. They'll have to pry off my cold, wet hands

before they can take away my bathtub.

[Pholus]

123. Between tubs and guns, which one killed while performing their intended purpose?

Analogy fail. Rather pathetically as well...

[hack89]

126. Guns are only useful for murdering people?

didn't know that. Must be doing something wrong.

So as long as something is not designed to kill then the death toll is not important. It is not the absolute number of death but the instrument that is important?

If you had the power to change anything in America with the only condition being you had to save the most lives, do you think that guns would be in the top 10? Would you ignore all those other killers because killing is not "their intended purpose."?

My point is simple - societies commonly downplay serious threats to public safety while overreacting to less dangerous threats. The vast majority of Americans are perfectly safe from violence of any kind. Yet we fret about guns while giving car keys to our teenage kids - in my state car accidents and alcohol are the killers of young people.

In the case of guns, it is simple. The demographics of gun violence is well documented. We know who is most likely to be a killer and we know who is most likely to be killed. And we know where the most killings are likely to be. And funny enough it turns out that the killing is being done by criminals fighting the drug wars in poor urban areas. If you are not part of those demographics you have never been safer.

And finally, lets not forget that gun deaths are at a 50 year low - there has been a 50% decrease in murder and manslaughter since 1992. If all these guns are so dangerous, how is that possible? Shouldn't more guns and laxer gun laws lead to more deaths not fewer?

[Pholus]

133. I appreciate your point. This point, not your OP.

Which was hyperbolic in its structure. When I see a post like that, I do admit to trolling back from time to time because usually it can be counted on to lead to some fairly silly discussions.

Your point in this post is good. Perhaps you should have emphasized it more clearly in the OP.

I'll answer your question in the spirit in which it was intended. Given PREVENTABLE deaths (and presuming you weren't telling me I had the cure to cancer sitting in my file cabinet) then yes, firearms deaths are still in the top 10. Definitely below Tobacco, Alcohol and Obesity (one of which I am guilty of) but I think those get a bit more press, lawsuits or regulation right now anyway. The third rail nature of gun regulation makes it a hot topic, regardless of how the actual laws are written. Add to that the absolutism of some gun owners and it becomes easy to pick on them.

When things are this entrenched, reasonable legislation will never occur anyway. I go target shooting with my friends (shocking as no "gun-grabber" should do that) and my state has a "no high capacity magazine" law but face it almost everyone has one, just like fireworks it's a joke cause you just drive across the state line and you can buy one. People see that so even when there ARE effective and reasonable laws you get the perception that the laws are not working. Attempts to add new laws end up entrenched battles where each side takes an extreme position (NEITHER side in the public's best interest) and they fight to win. That ALWAYS leads to a win for us all, right?

The NRA does not help. At one point there were a moderating voice and even a proponent of common sense laws that balanced the needs of sport hunters and people who need a gun for self defense with public safety. Those days are long gone.

Pity.

[hack89]

139. The problem with new laws is that they are aimed at the wrong people

the gun violence problem is really a violent criminal problem. Restricting the civil liberties of the law abiding does nothing to stop the activities of the law breakers.

The number of guns in America has skyrocketed. At the same time gun rights have been extended throughout the country. And what is the end result after 30 years? Historically low levels of gun violence including a 50% drop in murders and manslaughter. I think that is proof positive that Americans can own and use guns in a safe and responsible manner.

[Starboard Tack]

147. I guess suicides don't count as deaths.

The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

You win the "Irrelevant Nonsense Prize".

[hack89]

150. Suicides are not accidental or criminals deaths.

They are a person choices that represent no threat to society - there is no harm to you if someone feels suicidal. Isn't that the issue here - you getting shot from an irresponsible gun owner? Or now do you feel compelled to restrict my civil rights to stop someone else's poor choice?

[Starboard Tack]

152. Who said they were?

Your OP says

Baths kill more Japanese then guns kill Americans

.
I thought that was the issue. Now you're talking about suicides, accidents, criminal deaths and civil rights. Quite a leap from the bathtub. Mind you don't slip and hurt your head.

[hack89]

153. Why don't you wait until the next literal, simplistic black and white thread then?

we don't always have to keep the dialogue at a third grade level to please you.