But only 10% of those people die. So you are nine times more likely to die from being shot by a rifle than being killed by a lighning strike, which most people view as pretty unlikely.

Outlaw Thor

---

~
"You lie!" The Prophet Joe Wilson

There isn't much discussion going on about banning all rifles. Still, one death per day by someone being killed with a rifle is not insignificant.

While there would be some people upset if they couldn't buy a rifle with a 30-round magazine, it wouldn't bother me.

Not much we can do about lightning.

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

Next thing you know, they'll want to ban old age.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Yeah, the notion that humans can affect the weather is insane.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

This seems to me to be a post with probably accurate, but intentionally misleading information.
There are about 30,000 deaths per year in the US through the use of guns. Apparently per your stats, very few of them are due to the firearms categorized as 'rifles'. So- I'm not sure what you're getting at. If it's that we shouldn't ban lever-action 30-30's, I don't think you'll get much argument there.

Who worries about 'assault weapon' violence more than lightening?

Certainly not astraphobians. Although you might want to look up the definition of "lightening" since it only affects women. LOL

Yeah, kind of like your 30,000 deaths through the use of guns stat. It is probably accurate but intentionally misleading. This is a thread about murders using rifles.

The number of murders is closer to 10,000. Of that 10,000 some 300 rifles of any kind are used. The number of assault rifles used is again a small fraction of that. The point being that the 300,000,000 people in the US have a much greater chance of being struck by lightning than being shot by an "assault rifle".

What he is getting at is the fact that many people are calling for a ban on something that is one of the smallest causes of death.

How many people were killed road riding fancy bikes in your town last year? There were a few here in my town. Should we ban bikes? Should we ban "race bikes"? If we limited everyone to single speed beach cruisers they would travel a lot less which could possibly save one life in the US. Should we at least ban Aero bars and wheels? Why do you need those anyway?

This is the kind of absurd "feels good, but does nothing" legislation many of us object to. Don't forget we already had the ban being called for. It lasted a decade and had NO discernible affect. Why are we calling for it again?

If your hold a rifle up high over your head in a thunderstorm and get struck by lightning and die, is your death caused by the lightning or by the rifle?

We need to ban rifles to avoid these types of tragedies.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

It's pretty simple math:

There is much discussion going on about banning "assault weapons", which are a subset of "rifles". If the number of deaths from all rifles is too small to make "death by rifle" something to be concerned about, the even smaller number of deaths from assault weapons should cause even less concern.

There are at least two posts on this thread calling for tighter gun restrictions that apparently don't understand this simple relationship.

---

---

"100% of the people who confuse correlation and causation end up dying."

If all rifles are banned, that would be a problem. However, I haven't seen anyone who could make this happen proposing a ban on all rifles. (Certainly no one in the LR can do much about this.)

When you have something like the shootings in Newton, it's not difficult to see why this has raised concerns about the accessibility of firearms (be they "assault rifles" or otherwise) with high capacity magazines and the deaths related to this. FWIW, I don't have a problem with someone owning an AR-15 or similar weapon. But some limit on magazine capacity would not be unreasonable.

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

Please read post #12 again.

---

---

"100% of the people who confuse correlation and causation end up dying."

Sorry, I'm missing something.

Unless you're counting JSA's post as a proposal to ban all rifles.

Anyway, the day that all rifles are banned in the US is a long way off.

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

Nobody is seriously proposing to ban all rifles (though some extreme anti-gun advocates would like to if the could). However, there are proposals to ban a class of rifles known as "assault weapons" (not to be confused with selective-fire "assault rifles", which are already restricted).

The OP argues that death by rifle (assault weapon or otherwise, and regardless of magazine capacity) is statistically unlikely and implies that the public interest would be better served with policies that address greater risks to public safety.

This post by Haim frames the issue(s) particularly well:

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...post=4381311#4381311


ETA: this blog post, though long, addresses the topic even better:

http://www.grumpypundit.com/...ng-the-indefensible/

---

---

"100% of the people who confuse correlation and causation end up dying."

I have an idea, if people are really sincere about stopping gun violence why not just prohibit guns in areas where the violence is concentrated. Now I just came up with this idea so it may not be with out flaw but let's take it and run. You could have the National Guard go door to door in in high crime areas(as defined by zipcode?) and make sure no guns are present in the high gun violence area. Maybe set up check points to prevent guns from getting back in to the gun exclusion area. I know this might seem extreme to some but I think it would be effective. Like I said there might be some details to be worked out, but in principle I think this works. If this works for guns we could copy the same plan for lightning.

Well, the government could place a limit on the number of cloud to ground lightning strikes at say, nine, or so. You know, a number that the lightning fear mongers are comfortable with. This legislation would be about as effective as the current legislation protecting us from the gruesome acts committed by mentally unstable people.

Greg

---

If you are a Canuck that engages in gratuitous bashing of the US, you are probably on my Iggy List. So, save your self a bunch of typing a response unless you also feel the need to gratuitously bash me. If so, have fun.
"Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f___ things up" - Barack Obama, 2020

It would be nice if we could prevent anyone, mentally unstable or otherwise, from ever killing another person with a rifle, but it would be just about as easy to prevent lightning strikes. Anyone trying to make a connection or trying to compare the two is being silly.

Limiting the capacity of magazines would not be nearly as difficult. It wouldn't eliminate people getting killed by rifles, but I'd rather deal with a person, mentally ill or otherwise, who needs to reload after every five or six rounds vs. every 30 rounds while they're shooting other innocent people.

There isn't much to be done about lightning. (Maybe we could force everyone to leave Florida and Oklahoma?) But we have already done some things about about what "arms" people are allowed to bear. (I wonder what it would be like to own a B-61 nuclear bomb?) When "they" take away our rifles, I'll be upset. If they pass a law against high capacity magazines, it won't bother me.

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

Do none of you who come up with these ideas have friends who are cops who you can ask about these ideas? How difficult do you think it is going to be to change magazines every 7 shots when victims are unarmed and taught to hide behind their desks? one of the largest shootings ever involved someone with only pistols and multiple magazines. Not to mention the many weapons where magazines can be taped together to make it even easier to switch magazines.

You are kidding youself if you think magazine limits are helpful. Working on mental health would be helpful.

I don't think anyone (least of all me) is saying that a magazine limit will eliminate people getting shot.

But having done more than a little shooting during my lifetime, there is some delay involved in changing a magazine for someone who has practiced. There is more delay for someone who has not practiced. At any rate, I'd still rather deal with the person who has to reload after seven (or fewer) shots. (I'm a teacher, armed with pencils and rulers when I'm in my classroom.)

As far as the police I know and have talked to, they would also prefer to not have to deal with someone with a high capacity magazine.

When it comes to taping magazines together or simply refusing to turn in your high capacity magazines if they are ever outlawed, now you're dealing with the "If (blank) are against the law, only criminals will have (blank) " statement. Can't argue with that.

I agree that more needs to be done about mental health.

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

Of the dozens of biased talking points posted here, this one is the perhaps the biggest fail I have seen. Lets see:

* Rather than accurately discuss deaths due to lightning, all deaths and injuries are lumped together - FAIL
* Only a small subset of gun deaths are included - FAIL
* Injuries due to rifles are not included - FAIL
* "Let's ban lightning" cavalierlly ignores real policies and guidelines used to minimize the likelihood of injury due to lightning - FAIL

One could go on and on, but most depressing is watching denizens of this echo chamber smugly congratulating themselves for putting forth such a pile of moronic excrement.

Is it as big a fail as calling for a renewal of an "assaults weapons" ban? The same ban that was in place for a decade and had no measurable effect on crime while it was in place. The same ban that since expired has had no measurable effect on crime.

Can you think of anything that would be more fruitful if the goal is to reduce gun violence?

You completely miss the point. This particular OP is categorically worse as "biased talking point" than almost any post that I have seen on this issue (from either side). It doesn't even pretend to make any valid comparisons are push any policy agenda at all. It is a singularly poor starting point for any debate on gun policy. You cannot simply defend bad posts by instinctively trying to create a false equivalence. Some arguments are not created equal, and there is no comparably bad talking point to be picked from the other side.