• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama's plan to reduce gun violence

lurkerdeac said:
All Handguns 6,008.
All Rifles: 358.

Chances are better than pretty likely. But play in la-la land if you'd like to.
Click to expand...

citation?

you think those guys are in la la land just cause they don't have elkman's expertise with firearms? they used a heuristic, and were technically off, but you are the one in la la land b/c you missed their point.

more people die of revolvers every year yeah, but no revolvers are ever used in mass school shootings.... i'll let you connect the dots. if you can't, then you might consider going back to lurking.
 
My point does address the substance. AR-15's have become an easy target because of cosmetic features. Guns can all be dangerous, that's my point. Insurance companies are going to act like rational business and won't base insurance on scary looks, they'll base it on facts.
 
ok, and? your point?

edit: thanks for the citation
 
PH, not sure I follow your question?

The numbers are total murders, not incidents. I believe AR-15's are the most popular rifle in America, but I'd have to go look for a cite.
 
lurkerdeac said:
My point does address the substance. AR-15's have become an easy target because of cosmetic features. Guns can all be dangerous, that's my point. Insurance companies are going to act like rational business and won't base insurance on scary looks, they'll base it on facts.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about cosmetic features and scary looks? Nobody. WTF are you talking about?
 
lurkerdeac said:
PH, not sure I follow your question?

The numbers are total murders, not incidents. I believe AR-15's are the most popular rifle in America, but I'd have to go look for a cite.
Click to expand...

Do you really not understand the difference between raw numbers and rate numbers?

Husky said it perfectly. There are a lot more Volvos involved in crashes than Ferraris. But Volvos are still cheaper to insure. Because per car, they're still safer.
 
lurkerdeac said:
PH, not sure I follow your question?

The numbers are total murders, not incidents. I believe AR-15's are the most popular rifle in America, but I'd have to go look for a cite.
Click to expand...

his question is per gun manufactured, how many people are killed by it statistically. it's loosely related to what 923 and bbd are talking about last page.
 
He assumed AR-15's would be insured at a higher rate, I pointed out why that is unlikely to be the case.
 
Because insurance companies are smarter than you and know the difference between rates and totals

BeachBumDeac said:
Husky said it perfectly. There are a lot more Volvos involved in crashes than Ferraris. But Volvos are still cheaper to insure. Because per car, they're still safer.
Click to expand...
 
BeachBumDeac said:
Because insurance companies are smarter than you and know the difference between rates and totals
Click to expand...

You guys vastly underestimate the number of AR-15's that are out there. NYT article lists 3.3-3.5 million. The Ferraris isn't an apt comparison. It costs more to fix and it's accident rate is likely higher than a Volvos. The accident rate for AR-15's is lower than a revolver, that's my point.

I think the NYT article fairly lays out the argument and presents both sides of the argument. I doubt we are going to change each others minds.

ETA: Good night gents...
 
Last edited:
more people accidently shoot themselves with handguns. more mass murders are carried out with rifles (or machine pistols/modified handguns). both are dangerous as hell.

barrel length is inversely proportional to chances of an accident, that is true.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
The little kids weren't the only people he shot, and in fact they weren't the first people he shot at Sandy Hook. There were adults present too. Adults who could've stopped him if he wasn't spraying bullets at a rapid pace.
Click to expand...

What were they going to stop him with? Words of love?
 
Deacon923 said:
I agree. Every gun starts out legal. The challenge is keeping the initial gun owner from selling or giving it to a criminal or a crazy person. Registration and tracking, with mandatory background checks and criminal and financial penalties for people who sell their guns without doing the registration and backgrounding, would make legal gun owners think a lot harder about selling their piece to a criminal or their crazy uncle Frank with the gun fetish.

I also think that requiring insurance would help a lot. Insurance requirements would make gun owners and gun manufacturers internalize, to some extent, the external costs that gun ownership is putting on society, and add incentives for responsible gun ownership. If you proved you had a safe for your gun, your insurance would be lower. If you proved you were trained, your insurance would be lower. If you buy a .38 revolver, your insurance will be lower than if you buy an AR-15. Have a buyback program so people can get rid of their guns if they want when the new laws go into effect.
Click to expand...

How is requiring insurance going to help anything other than the insurance companies? It is an unnecessary burden on gun owners to require insurance, and moreover to offer more discounts for a safe (an additional unnecessary expense for the gun owner). What it amounts to is an extra tax on the people who aren't using their guns to kill people. I realize the idea here is to make owning guns so burdensome and expensive that people won't do it, but that does not affect the illegal use or ownership of guns, and it treads dubious Constitutional ground as policy. The courts are not so dumb as to think there is a difference between de jure and de facto attempts to restrict gun ownership. Chris Rock's little spiel about taxing jacking up the price of bullets so much that people can't afford them is a funny joke, but wouldn't be Constitutional. The government attempting to price people out of gun ownership is wrong, underhanded, and-- in my estimation-- illegal as fuck.

The same people who get their panties in a wad over somebody needing a free ID to vote don't seem to have a problem legislating additional restrictions and expenses such as these when somebody dares to exercise their right to bear arms.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
If somebody is stopping to reload (ie, not spraying bullets) then you don't need a gun to take them down. Just the will
Click to expand...

Let's say we have two guns. 6 bullets each (revolvers). By the time any reloading is needed, the adults are dead. Even with one gun that is the case. The larger point is that those kids were sitting ducks. They were all in that room, easy to control, and the adults that were in that room were way too busy protecting those kids to play hero.

Nobody was "spraying bullets" in any case. Nobody had a machine gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top