Please check my math on this one...

LOL Gotcha. I was a little slow on the uptake

 

Until there's force or fraud committed, it's peaceable.

I was thinking more along the lines of eliminating the drug war, not extending more totalitarianism.

 

Actually, as per my original post, I raised the comparison of guns and vehicles only because it routinely gets raised by gun proliferates; until it becomes inconvenient as an analogy.
As for the measure of risk, I wonder what level or risk requires the maintenance of firearms in the home in the first place; and how that was quantified...

 

Neither does driving in my driveway, or sitting still in traffic, yet these were both counted in the vehicular standard...

I am perfectly willing to concede that guns and cars are completely different tools that serve completely different purposes. As previously mentioned, I only raised this in order to kill "once and for all" the number of gun proliferates who continuously raise vehicular accidents as a "leading cause of death" in comparison to firearms.

Or maybe make guns more difficult for gang members to get. After all, the harder a crime is to commit - and the more likely you are to get caught, the less likely that crime is to be committed.

 

Wait, I do some math with statistics provided primarily from government statistics, and you want me to translate this into your specific circumstances? Weird...
My guess would be that you are a safer-than-average driver, who drives primarily when there are few other cars on the road.
How safe you will be shooting is not only a function of your actions, but also the actions of those around you - much as with driving. Given how little you shoot, I suspect your risk is generally low - though it would limit your proficiency and negate the purpose for having the firearms in the first place.

 

"Google Ranger"... That'd be an amusing userid.
Anyway, which of the numbers provided do you believe came from an invalid source? You seem to disagree with comparing the hours one tool is actually used to the hours another tool is used... Are you suggesting that a tool can fulfil a function without actually being used? That's like saying we should measure the risk of the car when it's sitting in the garage, or in a parking lot at work... Since "guns don't kill people, people kill people", my math was only to determine the comparative risk of these two items during timeframes when they are actually USED by PEOPLE.

 

Actually, you're being a bit presumptuous as to what kind of "traction" I was hoping for in the first place...
I've been very transparent about the fact that I'm tired of some individuals claiming that cars and vehicular accidents are more of a danger to the public than guns. By presenting actual data, I've discredited that argument and had a lot of people suddenly decide that "guns and cars shouldn't be compared"... That's exactly the "traction" I was looking for.

Question for you: How does an LOE prove that a firearm found in the possession of a random 19 year old was obtained illegally?

 

What do you think they are doing when they assemble? Needlepoint? They are handing out the drugs, counting their drug money, doing drugs, and planning hits against rival gangs. Not exactly peaceable.

So, you think "eliminating the drug war" is going to remove drugs from the streets, and border security is "totalitarism". The stupidity of that statement speaks for itself.

 

Tell that to the first responders in Oklahoma. You know the ones that were pulling kids out from under cars that the tornado deposited on schools.

My point was that you are comparing apples to oranges. You compared car driving miles to vehicular fatalities, and then rounds time spent at a gun range to gun related fatalities. All of the vehicular fatalities happen while the car is driving, but only a small number of the gun related fatalities happen at a gun range. These two points are not comparable.

That would be nice. But that is not what gun legislation is about. They want to keep law abiding citizens from owning guns. There is an old saying. "A lock does nothing but keep honest people honest." In other words, a lock does very little to stop a dishonest person from obtaining what is locked. The same can be said for gun control laws. They do nothing to stop criminals from getting guns. They only stop law abiding people from obtaining guns for home protection.

 

I like google ranger too, I'll sue you if you use it. Now on the meat and taters. I didn't say anything was invalid, I was simply pointing out when you set your own parameters you can bend anything to work for you. I actually seem to be saying that your comparison "7) In order for firearms to be considered AS SAFE AS automobiles, we would have to illustrate that Americans spent over 7,266,159,902 hours actively firing guns in 2009." actually firing is your downfall and the reason I called it a silly assertion. I went on to assert owning and carrying are an intricate part of "using" Hence you made your own parameters.

Finally, if my car is sitting in the garage or parking lot could I be charged with a felony for illegal use just because I possess it, ummm I think most logical people would say no. However if I possessed a firearm and pointed it at a person illegally without firing it does that make me eligible to be charged with the USE of a fire arm. Well we all know the answer to that eh? Once again, your math sux.

 

Sorry lad, you've proved nothing of the sort, you proved cars have so many hours of operations with X percentage of accidents and then you pulled a definition out of thin air as to what constitutes USE of firearms and finally, you didn't make any statement of proof for how many hours a firearm is used by your definition in your comparison. You just made a supposition that firearms would have to be fired X amount of hours by your interpretation of USE with no proof that that would be a logical definition. Guns and cars should be compared. Mostly because you miss the comparison completely with your math folly.

 

Seriously? In what way does death from tornado debris relate to this topic?

Actually, I illustrated the number of hours the average household would need to spend shooting to equal the risk represented by the number of hours each INDIVIDUAL spends driving... If anything, this is weighted in support of shooters. I never said anything about gun ranges, I only said that the tool (firearm or vehicle) must be used in order to represent a risk of fatality.

There definately are some irresponsible politicians with this agenda. The more militant and unreasonable gun owners are, the more fuel is added to their nonsensical rhetoric. Reasonable steps should be enacted to ensure that law-abiding individuals can own firearms and know how to use them - while the same steps enable law enforcement to identify and prosecute offenders. This will illustrate that gun owners are reasonable and interested in public safety, thereby making anyone who promotes a total ban look like an extremist, rather than just the flip-side of the gun control debate.

 

You seem to be disagreeing completely with most of your compatriots, who have indicated guns and cars should not be compared.
I proved the number of accidents per hour of vehicle operation. Correct.
Please illustrate what you consider to be "using a firearm" if not actually operating it.
I illustrated how many hours of firearm operation would be required to produce the same safety record as that represented by vehicle operation... Can you explain why this is not rational?

 

I see. Your assertion is that just owning a firearm constitutes "use".
I assume you would support the same assertion about vehicles?

 

Hope this is relevant to the OP's subject...was lucky enough to acquire 4500 rounds while on vacation, 2500 of Winchester 22lr in both 36 and 40 grain HP/RN and 2000 rounds of 7.62.36 FMJ. Love vacations when traveling through 4 different states.

Just checked my math for a total of 4500 rounds. Going shooting tomorrow with 17 family members and friends, BBQ will be at 1300. May everyone understand and appreciate what Memorial day is all about.

Bless America and the Constitution.

 

So, you aren't able to come up with a response, so you go for the ad hominem. Pathetic.

 

Answer: I see no problem with a 19 year old having a firearm in his/her possession depending on the circumstances. If he is out hunting or target practicing in a safe manner, I see no problem. As I don't support infringements on the 2nd Amendement, he/she may have one on his person in open or concealed carry in most circumstances depending on the person, place and time.

If the person in question has a gun and they are an illegal alien, especially an Islamic Arab or African, then the cop should arrest them first, and worry about where the gun came from second.

Also, if the 19 year old has visible evidence of gang involvement, and/or any criminal history that would preclude gun ownership or carry, then the cop should arrest the suspect first, then worry about where the gun came from second.

 

I think your use of the term "Most" is highly inaccurate.
I think you produced a number about vehicle accidents by hours of operations which I also have doubts about it's validity. However that's irrelevant to me, what I really wonder is if there are actual statistics produced by a research firm or institution or insurance company that are used?
I think I gave you an answer, I pull my gun and use it to stop an attack without actually operating it. If that isn't using a gun please tell me your description of what I did with the gun to prevent the attack.
I think you provided no discernible figures on how many hours guns are used at the range in the US, you just gave an example of how many hours guns would have to be used in order to match vehicle hour use and assumed it would be astounding to all of us yokels. I think you should do some more googling and give actual hours. You know...finish the equation....validate it.

 

Yes I assert carrying a firearm is using it, yes I assert drawing my weapon without firing it is using it, yes I assert pointing my weapon at someone without firing it is using it, all because the law states if I use my weapon as described above illegally against another human I can be charged with a felony use of a weapon.
No your assumption is wrong. You cannot be charged with a felony use of a parked vehicle against another human as far as I know.
Your math still sux.

 

I should have clarified the scenario... I intended a situation that a law-enforcement officer has reason to be looking at the person, perhaps on an unrelated matter. Not just a random unwarranted search of a teenager in the street for the purposes of "nothing better to do".

So "especially an Islamic Arab or African" meaning that there could be some leeway for... Chechens, because they happen to be white?

That seems a little subjective and open for interpretation... Most gun advocates routinely talk about "police state" and how law enforcement oppress the rights of the common man... You want to rely on the cop's word as to whether a kid threw a gang sign?

 

A fanatic of any kind is going to be a more dangerous threat. Yes the White, or off-White Chechen Islamic radical is probably going to be more crafty and therefore more dangeous than a radicalized African that stabs someone on broad daylight and shares his testamony with the crowd.

The visable evidence is usually more than showing a "gang sign"----It's called "picking the perp." This is the "person, place and time." A cop sees a large group of Black men coming out of a building at night. The cop thinks nothing of it because they are leaving a Sunday Night church meeting.

The same cop sees another group of Black men milling around in a suspicious manner in an area known for drug activity. They are dressed in gang attire and have various tattoos of known gangs. Any cop, even in a "police state" should have reasonable cause to be alert.

Gang activity like this is absolutely unacceptable for any race, religion or culture in any country. Allowing people like this to roam free oppresses the freedom and safety of honest citizens.

 

Wrong. Your post shows that you can't explain how eliminating the war on drugs will get drugs away from the gangs, or how enforcing border security is totalitarism. Until you do, you have not made an arguable point. Without an arguable point, no response is required. All you have is two very stupid statements hanging in the air. Which speaks for itself.

 

Your math is flawed.

You made the assumption that all firearm deaths are accidental (or that all automobile deaths are intentional). Either way, I could easily point my car at a group of people and kill someone, couldn't I? But that's not what happens in the majority of automobile related deaths. That is however the case in most firearm deaths.

In order for your math to be worth a damn, you need to compare the SAME statistics. Accidental firearm deaths vs. accidental automobile deaths.

In 2010, there were 606 fatal firearm related accidents. In the same year, there were 32,367 automobile deaths (let's assume, for simplicity, all of them were accidental, giving your argument an advantage).

According to your math (which I haven't verified) that means there was an accidental mortality rate by ownership of firearms equal to .000013% and for automobiles, .0028%, quite a larger number. Now you are right about the use aspect. We drive our cars much more frequently than we shoot our guns. However, since we can't get any data on someone using a gun as frequently as a car (cost prohibitive, as you mentioned) it is irrelevant. We don't know how the statistics would change, making any assumptions faulty.

Now lets compare something that does have the same amount of use as a gun. There are 347 drowning deaths per year (http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html), a little more than half of accidental firearm deaths. Should we ban swimming pools? Require that people pass a swimming test before they purchase a pool or go in the ocean? No, that would be ridiculous. I don't know the exact data on how often people go swimming, nor do I care to research it, but I'm assuming it's about as often as people go shooting.

 

At no point did I make assumptions about the intent or lack thereof related to those deaths. Not sure where that came from.

Deaths caused by one tool vs deaths caused by another... That's the same statistic to someone who routinely claims cars are as lethal as firearms, which is what I'm disproving.

Thanks for coming.

You're assuming that total number of hours spent swimming across the nation is equal to the total number of hours spent shooting?! That's a claim that would need validation. The fact that you are willing to make these assumptions, after earlier stating that assumptions are "faulty" unless specific data is sourced that fits your view of the situation... I'm not sure this is anything more than hypocrisy.

 

For obvious reasons, the number of people shooting and swimming at anyone time CAN'T be verified. So let me make it simple for you to understand. 39% of the population lives near the coast (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/population.html) or roughly ~120 million people.. And by your own calculations, there are ~45 millions "households" with guns or 70-80 million adults (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#ownership). Factor in winter, when you can't swim in the ocean (or lakes), and that makes a pretty small window for people to be able to swim (likewise for unheated pools). Shooting a gun is not restricted by seasons, which means you can shoot a gun anytime throughout the year. Not a quantitative analysis by any means but it's a far better comparison than car use vs gun use.

Do you think the utility provided by cars outweighs their cost in lives every year?