You like odds? I don't, but here are some anyway.

[Andrew D]

If you read my opening posting, you will discover that nowhere in it do I refer to banning "all" guns. So your first posting in this thread is based on exactly nothing. It is merely an attempt to obfuscate the issue.

[Andrew D]

According to more recent data, there are 310,000,000 firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. Given the numbers of homicides, non-fatal injuries, and suicides stated in the opening posting, that means that:

--> Fewer than 1 in every more than 27,900 of the firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. were used in the commission of those homicides;

--> Fewer than 1 in every more than 4,600 of the firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. were involved in those homicides and non-fatal injuries; and

--> Fewer than 1 in every more than 3,600 of the firearms in civilian hands in the U.S. were involved in those homicides, non-fatal injuries, and suicides.

[Scooter]

And fewer than 1 in 300,000,000 Americans were killed by radiation poisoning. So let's let everyone own however many nuclear warheads they choose.

[Andrew D]

Another pointless obfuscation.

When you don't like facts, just run away from them ....

[Scooter]

Funny, I thought I just stated a fact. And we were talking about machines that kill, were we not?

[Sean]

One question Andrew...

Would you honestly be willing to look one of the parents who lost a child at Sandy Hook in the eye and tell them about "miniscule risks" and favourable odds?

As I wrote here back in December...

Anyone who can hear about this tragedy and not say, "Okay, tighter gun control may not solve all our problems but let's try it because we have to change something!", is not somebody who ought to be around guns (or children) IMO.

[Scooter]

You're talking to people for whom gun ownership is a religion.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Would you honestly be willing to look one of the parents who lost a child at Sandy Hook in the eye and tell them about "miniscule risks" and favourable odds?

From what I read, a lot of people in the Sandy Hook area are gun owners (I think there are two gun ranges and numerous gun clubs in the area).

[Sean]

Sorry oldr, I don't get your poimt...

[oldr_n_wsr]

That many in the Sandy Hook area value their gun freedoms even after the event.

[Guinevere]

One question Andrew...

Would you honestly be willing to look one of the parents who lost a child at Sandy Hook in the eye and tell them about "miniscule risks" and favourable odds?

As I wrote here back in December...

Anyone who can hear about this tragedy and not say, "Okay, tighter gun control may not solve all our problems but let's try it because we have to change something!", is not somebody who ought to be around guns (or children) IMO.

I asked that same question several posts ahead, and he has yet to answer it.

[Guinevere]

Or the families of the hundreds killed in Chicago so far this year?

I am guessing gang violence is much of the cause of death in Chicago this year. In which case, let them take care of offing each other. But I am sorry for the collateral damage.

That is not how a civilized society resolves conflict and problems. One of those "collateral" victims was a young girl who sang at the Inauguration the week before, and then she was shot down in the streets of Chicago. No, we can't let them keep on "offing" each other.

[Rick]

No, we can't let them keep on "offing" each other.

Who is "Them"? That segment of society that don't give two hoots in Hades about gun laws anyhow?

Just curious...

[Lord Jim]

I asked that same question several posts ahead, and he has yet to answer it.

In fairness to Andrew, I believe he has said several times that he favors (as do I) all three of the proposals to help reduce gun violence that are part of the serious national discussion on the issue; universal background checks, the 10 round magazine limit, and the ban on assault weapons.

[Guinevere]

Would you honestly be willing to look one of the parents who lost a child at Sandy Hook in the eye and tell them about "miniscule risks" and favourable odds?

From what I read, a lot of people in the Sandy Hook area are gun owners (I think there are two gun ranges and numerous gun clubs in the area).

So what? Do you think any one of those people would trade theirs kids lives for their gun rights? Go back and look at the faces of those SIX AND SEVEN YEAR OLDS that were so brutally slaughtered. Look at the list of names of the hundreds killed "collaterally" in Chicago and other cities. It's not right, and we have to do whatever we can to stop it from happening again. Gun restrictions in other countries have reduced or eliminated mass killings. if it can work in Australia, it can work here, and there is NO EXCUSE for not trying it.

I am trying so hard to be reasonable and straight forward and look for compromise. But the gun people won't give up one inch, and if I hear one more fucking excuse I'm going to end up with Sue, and move on to the "repeal the second amendment" movement.

[Sue U]

I'm going to end up with Sue, and move on to the "repeal the second amendment" movement.

It's not a bad place to be, hon. Andrew says we're "virtuous absolutists." I can live with that.

[Guinevere]

I'm going to end up with Sue, and move on to the "repeal the second amendment" movement.

It's not a bad place to be, hon. Andrew says we're "virtuous absolutists." I can live with that.

I'm most definitely not an absolutist . . .

[Big RR]

Would you honestly be willing to look one of the parents who lost a child at Sandy Hook in the eye and tell them about "miniscule risks" and favourable odds?

I won't answer for Andrew, but do you heonestly believe that the unreasonableness that comes from profound grief something which should really be the basis of policy decisions? If my child were killed by a rampaging trucker speeding through town I might well want to ban all trucks from the road, or even just from local streets, but that should not replace reasoned debate which includes honest assessment of risk. It would do little to assuage my grief to discuss the real risk of such deaths, but that is precisely what those charged to enact the laws should be doing, even if they'd rather not say that to me (and I'd rather not hear it).

And Guin, ending up with sue for a second amendment ban would nt be all that bad a place; at least it would get attention and discussion it deserves before anything is implemented. Sure, many gun people won't give one inch, but then, neither will many on th eother side of the issue.

Jim--re the ban on assault weapons, how are they to be defined? If they are to be defined by some capabilities (such as able to fire so many rounds a minute or some such), I might well be able to live with that, but if it is only because a gun "looks" like a military weapon, but is otherwise pretty much the same as others that can be be freely owned and sold, I can't support that. And I say that as someone who has never owned a gun, although I did shoot competitively in college and have competed in pistol shooting competitions as well. I have no problem with the other two proposals.

[Lord Jim]

Guin, I will certainly concede that the leadership of the gun lobby has been intransigent on the issue to point of absurdity, (I've been highly critical of them) but the Australian model is a complete non-starter, and certainly doesn't represent any sort of a "compromise" :

Before someone can buy a firearm, he or she must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit has a mandatory 28-day delay before it is first issued. In some states (e.g., Queensland, Victoria, and New South Wales), this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defense is not accepted as a reason for issuing a license, even though it may be legal under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for self-defense.[2]

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

A system where target shooting is considered a "Genuine Reason" but defending yourself and your family isn't seems absolutely surreal to me, and I am quite confident would be considered completely unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of Americans, including many who would gladly embrace less draconian measures.

[Scooter]

I will defer to someone who actually lives there, but given that the statement "self-defense is not accepted as a reason for issuing a license" is unsourced, I suspect that it is a gross oversimplification at best.