(June 13, 2016 at 2:54 am)Huggy74 Wrote: I did post sources btw.

(June 12, 2016 at 10:39 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: According to the FBI
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr...0-2014.xls

There were 8,124 homicides involving firearms in 2014, and according to the NHTSA, there were 32,675 traffic fatalities in 2014.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+R...ing-higher[...]

See? sources.

Hey, genius - you seem to be comparing the numbers of all the car-related fatalities, with ONLY the gun-related homicides. Don't people die from firearms in other ways? Say - suicides and accidents? I guess that little detail escaped your attention... Or you're just dishonest. Or dumb. All of the above?...

(June 13, 2016 at 2:27 am)Huggy74 Wrote: What you don't get is I never made any claim of autos being "four times more likely" to cause death, all I stated was the body count between guns and cars. If everyone had guns and were shooting them off on a daily basis and there were 128,000 gun deaths per year vs 32,000 auto deaths, would that be more acceptable seeing how guns were being used more than autos in that scenario?

Call me "Crazy", but I think efforts to reduce unnecessary/avoidable deaths are laudable ... but that the information proferred ought to be sound.

I'm not saying you said that autos are four times more likely to cause death than autos. What I am saying is that you're comparing apples to oranges, until you compare usage rates.

Simply throwing out raw numbers is useless without context. It's a nuanced point. Hopefully you can see it.

(June 12, 2016 at 11:01 pm)dyresand Wrote:

(June 12, 2016 at 10:57 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I don't own any guns...

Also there are more guns in the U.S. than automobiles, yet more deaths are attributed to automobiles, so your logic kind of fails.

Btw, mind posting your stats for vending machine related deaths?

Huggy the issue here is the fact that there is terrible gun regulation and having better gun regulation would have prevented this.

What kind of gun regulation would have prevented the shooting?

(June 13, 2016 at 3:12 am)Aractus Wrote: [...]which is often the mindless rhetoric that we hear coming out of the US "if you ban guns then more deaths will happen" [...]

Please link to a few examples of this rhetoric you seem to be coming across.

(June 13, 2016 at 3:29 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(June 12, 2016 at 11:01 pm)dyresand Wrote: Huggy the issue here is the fact that there is terrible gun regulation and having better gun regulation would have prevented this.

What kind of gun regulation would have prevented the shooting?

In this particular case, none. His guns were legal; he was a security officer and allowed to own them on a private permit as well. Even had he not had a permit, he would still have had access to a handgun.

(June 13, 2016 at 3:03 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote:

(June 13, 2016 at 2:48 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Yet you fail to see the irony in the thing that is DESIGNED to be safe having a higher body count every year than the thing designed to kill.[...]

LOL. So the fact that large percentage of US adult population never uses a gun in their life, yet EVERYONE uses cars, all the time - that has no influence on YouTube r (questionable anyway) statistic?

It's risk vs benefit, you see. If ALL cars did was kill people - then they would be banned. And when guns start carrying goods and people around (or anyway - have more beneficial uses than they do now) - then the society might get over the collateral damage.

Just so we're clear, the death toll is acceptable when the benefits outweigh the risks, correct?

(June 13, 2016 at 12:25 am)Tiberius Wrote: As an attempt to try and get both sides to agree on something, can we at least agree that there is a problem with gun crime in this country which doesn't happen in other countries?

Plenty of Scandinavian countries have high gun ownership, but low gun crime. This suggests to me that some balance can be made where guns aren't banned outright, but gun crime is reduced.

So, what solutions would people suggest that don't explicitly violate the 2nd amendment?

You do know that the States can grant greater rights than the Federal Constitution if they want to?

Article 1 Section 8 of the Florida State Constitution:

"SECTION 8. Right to bear arms.—
(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.
(b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, “purchase” means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and “handgun” means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph.
© The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony.
(d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun.
History.—Am. C.S. for S.J.R. 43, 1989; adopted 1990."
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/inde...nu=3#A1S08

So according to the Florida State Constitution a person has to wait three days before he takes possession of a hand gun but there's no restriction on when he can take possession of a shot gun or rifle.  He can walk in and walk out with a long gun.  And if he has a concealed weapon permit he can get a hand gun without the waiting period.  It seems that the concealed weapon permit eliminates the requirement for a background check.

(June 13, 2016 at 3:41 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:  It seems that the concealed weapon permit eliminates the requirement for a background check.

Here in Texas, that background check is part of the issuance of the permit.

What are the requirements in Florida for CHL? Do they include a background check?

(June 13, 2016 at 3:44 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(June 13, 2016 at 3:41 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:  It seems that the concealed weapon permit eliminates the requirement for a background check.

Here in Texas, that background check is part of the issuance of the permit.

What are the requirements in Florida for CHL? Do they include a background check?

I'm sure that it does but the point is that once you get the concealed weapon permit the person doesn't have to go through another background check.  So be good, get the permit, stock up on guns and ammo, and go crazy.

(June 13, 2016 at 3:40 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Just so we're clear, the death toll is acceptable when the benefits outweigh the risks, correct?

Yes, except in the real world, in most cases there's no way to directly, mathematically compare benefits and risks in any objective way. When human emotions come to play - even statistically small risk of a particularly horrific event can be too much for psychological comfort of the citizens. Just like even a microscopic chance of - say - winning the lottery is enough for large portion of society to consider playing the lottery a worthwhile idea.